Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-444716

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 17, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding bird abundance, wildfire ignition data, economic cost-benefit ratios, and water quality sedimentation, while citing specific DEIS tables and legal precedents to challenge the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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
- “protecting healthy human as well as wild life”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “spot hawks, eagles, bluebirds, coyotes, bobcats, and foxes”
- “species that its own evidence shows cannot tolerate road noise”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds”
- “Clean water is essential for life”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “protect that water quality record”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “do not want any more of my taxpayer dollars spent building new roads”
- “carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”

What it names

Roadless areas: Bear CanyonBear MountainBlack ButteChalk PeakTuolumne River
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 gap

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Saving roadless areas of nature is crucial to protecting healthy human as well as wild life, and that conviction is why I am filing this comment in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have hiked all over the parks and forests around the Bay Area, including roadless areas in the Stanislaus and Los Padres National Forests, among them the Tuolumne River area, Bear Mountain, Bear Canyon, Black Butte, and Chalk Peak. I go there for the exercise and the quiet, to photograph flowers, and to spot hawks, eagles, bluebirds, coyotes, bobcats, and foxes. A healthy, undisturbed environment is crucial for all of them. The agency's own record confirms that concern: 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 birds I go looking for in the Los Padres are not incidental to this question. They are precisely the kind of species the science says a road would harm. I ask that the agency explain how this proposal can be squared with those findings and what mitigation it offers to the species that its own evidence shows cannot tolerate road noise. The proposal's wildfire justification troubles me most, because the agency's own words collapse it. 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is equally thin. The agency's own record states that "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." I do not want any more of my taxpayer dollars spent building new roads for returns that minor. These areas have been protected for years for a good reason, and the agency is already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on the roads it has, against a road budget of about $73 million a year. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which 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, and explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already this far underwater. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean water is essential for life. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The agency owes the public a direct answer to how it intends to protect that water quality record once the rule is gone. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for one national rule, but the agency's own record quotes its prior position: "the USDA 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." That approach was already tried and was rejected by the Ninth Circuit. The agency should address how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. On the question of authority, the agency has already lost this argument in court. The Tenth Circuit held: "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." The agency must address that court's finding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA, and state the basis for any contrary position it now advances. My kids and grandkids need more unlogged roadless places to explore and find peace in, not less. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. That alone demands a full answer before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Peter Knopf Palo Alto, CA