Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-529562

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule is inconsistent with its own data regarding road-generated sediment loads in water-stressed watersheds, increased human-caused fire ignition risks on roaded lands, and the legal validity of the 2001 rule as affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, while highlighting the lack of public engagement for the rescission process.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “global water bankruptcy”
- “introduce more toxins into natural waterways and groundwater stores”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “roads multiply human-caused ignition risk”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “cannot justify opening roadless areas to road construction on fire safety grounds”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “untouched, undeveloped land”
- “recreate without worry of deforestation, pollution, or mining”
- “keeping tourism and recreation dollars inside our own economy”
- “nearest places I can stand on ground that has not been carved up”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit found the rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “litigated, and it failed”
- “legal basis for any position to the contrary”
- “REVERSE the district court's order”

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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 There is nothing like looking out at untouched, undeveloped land, and it should stay that way, not only for inherent reasons, but logical ones. I hike and camp all across California and the United States. The roadless areas closest to me, Eagle Peak, Pine Creek, No Name, Sill Hill, Barker Valley, and Cutca Valley, all inside the Cleveland National Forest in California, are places I can recreate without worry of deforestation, pollution, or mining. Each acre is a vital part of what makes this country what it is, and there are multiple reasons that I oppose any action that puts them at risk. The UN has declared global water bankruptcy. I live in a region that gets 90 percent of its water from somewhere else, and 70 percent of that comes from the Colorado River, which is already hitting record lows. The government has already imposed cutbacks on Nevada, Arizona, and California. We do not have the buffer to forego the Roadless Rule and introduce more toxins into natural waterways and groundwater stores. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. We are beginning to pollute our fresh water again at the exact moment we can least afford it, and I ask that the agency explain on the record how rescinding this rule is consistent with its own data on road-generated sediment load into these watersheds. On wildfire, the agency argues that rescission supports fuels management, but its 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." I see it all the time; some careless jackass throws a cigarette butt out the window, then peoples lives are at risk and acres of land are on fire outside of a natural rotation. The agency cannot justify opening roadless areas to road construction on fire safety grounds while its own findings project that roads multiply human-caused ignition risk. I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is just as weak. 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." Maintaining wildness areas of the scale found in California's 4,389,760 acres of inventoried roadless land means keeping tourism and recreation dollars inside our own economy, dollars people would otherwise spend traveling to places like Scandinavia or southeast Asia to find comparable scenery. Those are real economic returns the proposal ignores. The agency should reconcile this action with its own cost-benefit analysis and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a backlog of deferred maintenance serves the public interest. The agency has tried replacing the national rule with a state-by-state approach before. Its own 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." That approach was litigated, and it failed. The agency has never explained how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. It should do so now. On the question of legal authority, the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress permitted. A federal appellate court has already answered that question: "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 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency owes the public a direct explanation of the legal basis for any position to the contrary. 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. California alone holds 381 inventoried roadless areas. These places are not abstractions. They are the nearest places I can stand on ground that has not been carved up and hollowed out. There is no getting that back once it is gone. Do not rescind a thing. Sincerely, Kaylee SD, California