Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-445073

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's own DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain data on bird decline, increased fire risk on roaded lands, and negative net economic benefits that contradict the justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule, and requests the agency to reconcile these internal inconsistencies on the record.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “harboring disproportionate biodiversity”
- “black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “rescission will harm them”
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”
- “justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “cannot establish a net benefit”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit has already ruled”
- “within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “Ninth Circuit has already reviewed”
- “basis for any contrary legal position”

What it names

National Forests: Cherokee National Forest
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 I am writing to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. Getting out of the city to explore nature that is being respected and managed carefully matters deeply to me. I have plans to hike in the Cherokee National Forest. The Cherokee holds 18 inventoried roadless areas totaling 84,881 acres, including pockets like Citico Creek, Big Frog Mountain, and Bald River Gorge, where the southern Appalachians function as an evolutionary crossroads harboring disproportionate biodiversity: black bear, hellbender, brook trout, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, Virginia spiraea, and more tree species than grow in all of northern Europe. I also paddle the Caney Fork. The birds, insects, fish, and more that draw me to these places depend on the conditions this rule protects, and the agency's own record makes a compelling case that rescission will harm them and cannot be justified on the grounds offered. The DEIS documents 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. The agency simultaneously argues that opening roadless areas serves the public interest. Those two positions need to be reconciled, and I ask the agency to explain in this docket how the bird data in its own environmental review supports the direction it has chosen. 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 proposal nonetheless justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from that finding and 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 is equally troubled. The agency's own record acknowledges 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." Its own 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 and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, while the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify expanding that backlog? The agency must answer that question in this record. The proposal also argues for state-by-state approaches over a national rule, but the agency's own prior rulemaking acknowledged "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 has already reviewed what happened when a national rule was replaced with state petitions. I ask the agency to address on the record how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies and its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. Finally, on statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit has already ruled: "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 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state in this proceeding the basis for any contrary legal position. Please don't mess with our land, y'all, and more importantly, please do not discard protections that your own record cannot show should be removed. "For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would have devastating consequences for future generations and the land they live in. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule," and support "Alternative 1, the No Action alternative." Sincerely, Hilary M W Nashville, TN