Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-415348

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted September 15, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission contradicts its own DEIS data regarding wildfire ignition rates and bird community degradation, fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given recreation losses and maintenance backlogs, and lacks a sound legal basis contrary to existing Tenth Circuit precedent.

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

  • Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
  • Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
  • EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
  • Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
  • EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
  • RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
  • AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
  • LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
  • Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Still open to the agency

  • Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Pileated Woodpecker, the Brown Thrasher... move through that forest”
    • “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
    • “fragment the unbroken habitat corridors through which wildlife moves freely”
    • “verified populations of the cerulean warbler alongside black bear, brook trout, hellbender, and the northern long-eared bat”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “DEIS Table 21 reports higher fire density on roaded land than inside these protected areas”
    • “agency's own data undercuts the wildfire rationale offered for rescission”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue... against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system”
    • “agency has not established that this action produces a net benefit”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “Tenth Circuit has already addressed that question directly”
    • “held the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”
    • “Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in that earlier state-by-state approach”
    • “agency must state on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”

What it names

National Forests
Chattahoochee National Forest
Roadless areas
Ben Gap
Law cited
28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited
Kroeger et al. 2022

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidence

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Chattahoochee National Forest is where I hike every day, for exercise, for peace, and for the chance to appreciate nature and all its wonders. The Pileated Woodpecker, the Brown Thrasher (our state bird), and so many others move through that forest. The Appalachian Trail runs just a few miles from my home. I paddle the Hiwassee and the Chattahoochee rivers. I photograph birds during the fall and spring migrations in the roadless areas. These are not abstractions to me. The Chattahoochee holds 23 inventoried roadless areas totaling 63,351 acres, including the 1,292-acre Ben Gap roadless area. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of it at risk, and I oppose this proposal without reservation. The agency's own data undercuts the wildfire rationale offered for rescission. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." That is the agency's own finding. DEIS Table 21 reports higher fire density on roaded land than inside these protected areas. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own draft environmental impact statement contains. Birds are part of what takes me into the Chattahoochee every day, and the science the agency itself cited makes clear what roads do to them. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. (source: DEIS; Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) The forest holds verified populations of the cerulean warbler alongside black bear, brook trout, hellbender, and the northern long-eared bat. Ben Gap and the surrounding roadless areas function as connective corridors. Roads do not merely add noise; they fragment the unbroken habitat corridors through which wildlife moves freely between one part of the forest and another. The agency must explain, in concrete terms, how it accounts for this documented harm to bird communities when its own cited research shows that road presence degrades the very values these areas were protected to preserve. The economic case for rescission is no more convincing than the fire case. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Its Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency has not established that this action produces a net benefit, and it should reconcile the proposal with those figures before proceeding further. The agency also argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a national rule. But the record reflects that the USDA previously "discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.'" 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. The Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in that earlier state-by-state approach. How does this proposal avoid repeating them? That question deserves a direct answer in this record. Finally, the agency's legal justification is also unpersuasive. The proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit has already addressed that question directly: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." That court held the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. I urge the Department to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule here. The agency's own record - on fire, wildlife, economics, and legal authority - does not support rescission. I hike this forest daily and have seen what these areas protect. I ask the agency to weigh that record before finalizing any decision. Sincerely, Andrea Brannen Hiawassee, Georgia

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless