Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-540956

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk and economic net benefits, and cites prior judicial rulings to challenge the legal and procedural basis for rescinding 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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Opening roadless areas to new road construction in the name of fire safety directly contradicts that finding”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule”
- “did not survive judicial review”
- “Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “The people who drink that water”

What it names

National Forests: Mendocino 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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I hike and camp along the California Coast, across Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, and throughout the Sierras. I am opposing the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The Mendocino National Forest is part of that landscape. I have a direct stake in what happens to it. The agency justifies this rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. That justification is undercut by the agency's own record. 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." Opening roadless areas to new road construction in the name of fire safety directly contradicts that finding. The ignition data in DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain, in its own record and in plain terms, why the proposal departs from these prior findings and how it reconciles the rescission with the density data its own environmental review produced. The economic case for rescission is similarly thin. 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." Against that baseline, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that spans negative territory cannot establish a net benefit. Meanwhile the road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency needs to reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain how a course of action its own analysis cannot confirm as economically beneficial justifies adding to a deferred maintenance burden already measured in the billions. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency has tried that before and it did not survive judicial review. 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." But the agency's own prior findings acknowledged that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, which is precisely why a national framework was adopted. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the specific deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last substituted a state-by-state approach for the national rule. The proposal also questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. That question has already been answered in federal court. 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." The Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. If the agency holds a contrary position, it must state the legal basis for that position in the record. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The people who drink that water, and who hike and camp in places like the Mendocino coast and the Sierras, are the public this agency is charged with serving. The record before the agency does not support rescission. I ask that the agency answer each of the points raised here before taking any final action. Sincerely, Anjelica Christon Petaluma, California