Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-530784

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, bird community losses, and net economic benefits, while citing specific legal precedents (Ninth and Tenth Circuit) and local geographic locations (San Bernardino National Forest, Rouse Hill, Hixon Flat) to oppose 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
- “watch woodpeckers, Steller's jays, and bald eagles”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “habitat fragmentation that follows”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “forest that does not burn from a dropped cigarette or a spark off a new road cut”
- “wildfire and fuels rationale for rescission”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road maintenance backlog already stands at $6.9 billion”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “lost in the Ninth Circuit”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “2001 rule was upheld as within the authority Congress granted”
- “revives that approach without addressing the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit found”

What it names

National Forests: San Bernardino National Forest
Roadless areas: Hixon FlatRouse 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 knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Watching a new road go up on the way to Big Bear, completely pointless and destructive of the environment, is what brought me here. I fish freshwater in the San Bernardino National Forest, I hike to Jenks Lake out of Barton Flats, and I watch woodpeckers, Steller's jays, and bald eagles in those same woods. The roadless areas inside that forest, including Rouse Hill at 13,745 acres and Hixon Flat at 8,095 acres, are part of what I am asking this agency to protect. This comment opposes rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own record destroys the wildfire argument for rescission before it can stand. 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." The birds I watch in the San Bernardino National Forest depend on forest that does not burn from a dropped cigarette or a spark off a new road cut. The DEIS's own Table 21 shows higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask the agency to explain in this docket how its wildfire and fuels rationale for rescission can be squared with ignition data its own analysts assembled, and to reconcile this proposal with that finding. The birds themselves are a separate issue. 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. The woodpeckers, Steller's jays, and bald eagles I see in the San Bernardino National Forest are exactly the kind of species that research describes as displaced or reduced by roads and road noise. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. Rescission puts that entire inventory at risk of incremental road development and the habitat fragmentation that follows. The agency must explain what it finds in its own evidence that outweighs those documented bird-community losses. The economics do not support rescission either. The agency's record shows "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." The proposal would expose nationally significant roadless values for returns the agency's own numbers describe as marginal. The Cost Benefit Analysis in the record 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, while the road maintenance backlog already stands at $6.9 billion. The agency must explain on the record how any action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding that backlog further. The legal history cuts against rescission as well. The last time the agency substituted state-by-state approaches for the national rule, it lost in the Ninth Circuit. 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." The agency's own prior finding was that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. This proposal revives that approach without addressing the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit found the last time. The agency must explain how this rescission avoids those same defects. And on the authority question: the Tenth Circuit held, reversing a permanent injunction against the 2001 rule: "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 2001 rule was upheld as within the authority Congress granted. The agency should state clearly what legal basis it relies on to characterize that authority differently now. The road going up toward Big Bear is already doing damage I can see. I do not want the same thing to happen inside Rouse Hill, Hixon Flat, or anywhere else in the San Bernardino National Forest because this agency walked away from the one rule that held the line. Sincerely, Haley Lake Elsinore, California