Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-444779

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed 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 habitat loss, wildfire ignition data, and economic cost-benefit calculations, while citing the Tenth Circuit's legal holding that the 2001 Roadless Rule was within statutory authority under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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, 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
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “habitat where those numbers become real losses”
- “hawks and other birds of prey, foxes, coyotes, bobcats”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data already in its record”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “road maintenance backlog already at $6.9 billion against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency has not addressed that holding”
- “local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”

What it names

National Forests: Cleveland National Forest
Roadless areas: Barker ValleyCutca ValleyEagle PeakNo NamePine CreekSill Hill
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hiking and backpacking through roadless country is how I experience what remains of wild California, and the areas I care about most, Eagle Peak, Pine Creek, No Name, Sill Hill, Barker Valley, and Cutca Valley in the Cleveland National Forest, are exactly the kind of places this rescission would expose. I oppose it without reservation, and I ask the agency to address the specific contradictions its own record creates. The birds are a big part of why I go. Hawks and other birds of prey, foxes, coyotes, bobcats: these are the animals I look for in country that roads have not yet touched. The agency's own record gives me reason to believe that opening these areas to roads would harm what I go there to find. The DEIS cites 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. Eagle Peak at 6,481 acres, Barker Valley at 11,940 acres, Cutca Valley at 14,530 acres: these are not abstract policy units. They are the habitat where those numbers become real losses. I ask that the agency respond to how the rescission is compatible with its own documented findings about roads and bird communities, and explain what mitigation, if any, would prevent the species-avoidance effects its own cited science describes. On wildfire, the agency's own record 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." The Cleveland National Forest sits in a region where fire risk is not hypothetical. Yet the agency now proposes to rescind the rule in part on wildfire management grounds, while its own DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data already in its record. I do not want my tax dollars spent to invade roadless protected areas, and the economic picture here makes that position easier to defend, not harder. The agency's own analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The record also 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." A cost-benefit analysis that cannot establish a net benefit, combined with a road maintenance backlog already at $6.9 billion against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year, does not make a case for building new roads into country that has none. The agency has not explained how this arithmetic justifies expanding the very system it cannot sustain. 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. The case for a national rule protecting these landscapes was litigated and settled. The record before the agency states: "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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not treat it as creating de facto wilderness. The agency now suggests the rule exceeded its statutory authority, but it has not addressed that holding. It must explain the basis for any contrary legal position before proceeding further. The state-by-state approach the agency prefers was also tried before. The record reflects that "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 challenged and rejected in litigation. The agency's own prior finding acknowledged that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. What has changed to make piecemeal state petitions an adequate substitute for a uniform national protection? The agency has not said, and it should. Sincerely, Abigail Livingston San Diego, CA