Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-534295

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule conflicts with its own DEIS findings on wildfire incidence (Table 21), presents economically marginal benefits against significant recreation losses and a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and fails to distinguish itself from the state-by-state framework previously rejected by the Ninth Circuit or the statutory authority interpretation rejected by the Tenth Circuit.

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
- “Logging wrecks streams, and it needs to be stopped”
- “1,034 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Southwest region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “watched a watershed change after road construction”
Wildlife Habitat
- “shelter Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat”
- “each range rising from the Great Basin like a sky island with its own water and its own wildlife”
- “what disappears when road networks expand”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “agency's own draft environmental impact statement reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit rejected it, finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode values”
- “Tenth Circuit held... found the rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “explain on the record how it avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit already identified”

What it names

National Forests: Humboldt-Toiyabe 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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My father grew up hunting, and I learned to hunt on Molokai, where that skill means feeding your family and protecting natural resources. That foundation shaped how I understand wild land: not as scenery, but as something a community depends on. Camping with family deepened that connection further, giving us something that roads and development cannot restore once it is gone. When I look at the Mokelumne-Spratt roadless area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, I see the same logic at work. The Humboldt-Toiyabe holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, each range rising from the Great Basin like a sky island with its own water and its own wildlife. Logging wrecks streams, and it needs to be stopped. That is not a slogan; it is what anyone who has watched a watershed change after road construction understands in their bones. California alone holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and 1,034 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Southwest region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. What is proposed here touches all of that. The agency's own findings on fire should stop this proposal before it begins. The 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 rescission is justified in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet the agency's own draft environmental impact statement reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain, in plain terms and with citation to the record, why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21. The economics are just as hard to square. 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." Against those numbers, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis 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. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. How does expanding a road system with that kind of deficit, for gains this marginal and this uncertain, constitute sound management? The agency must reconcile those figures before proceeding. The legal history of this rule is not a blank slate. 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 tried replacing the national rule with a state-by-state framework before, and the Ninth Circuit rejected it, finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode values that are nationally significant. This proposal follows the same path. The agency must address what distinguishes this attempt from the one that failed, and explain on the record how it avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit already identified. On the question of statutory authority, the courts that reviewed the 2001 rule reached a clear conclusion. 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." That court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The current proposal implies a contrary reading of the agency's statutory authority. The agency should state plainly and for the record what legal basis supports a position the Tenth Circuit already rejected. The Humboldt-Toiyabe's sky islands shelter Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. These are not abstract inventory entries. They are what roadless means in practice, and they are what disappears when road networks expand. I oppose this rescission. Caroline Reimal California/Hawaii