Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-553928

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis by citing the DEIS's own findings on elk and deer habitat, grizzly mortality risks, and fire ignition data (Table 21), while requesting the agency explain how the rescission aligns with these internal contradictions and the Tenth Circuit's legal precedent regarding the 2001 Rule's statutory authority.

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
- “elk, deer, and bear we hunt need a refuge”
- “elk avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them”
- “mountain lions need protected forests and mountains to have a home”
- “increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I spend weekends and holidays camping and hiking throughout the Angeles, Inyo, Tahoe, and Stanislaus forests”
- “want to keep experiencing it, others to experience it, and this land protected for the next hundred years”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “appreciation for the land and its beauty”
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”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “federal appellate court has already answered the question the proposal re-opens”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “legal basis for any contrary position it now takes”

What it names

National Forests: Angeles National Forest
Roadless areas: Arroyo SecoMagic MountainSan Gabriel AddSan JoseStrawberry PeakTuolumne River
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 gapRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests I grew up in are not abstractions. My father took me hunting deer through the Angeles Forest, around Barley Flats and into the backcountry, and what I carried home from those days was not just game but something harder to name: appreciation for the land and its beauty. We may be hunters, but stewardship always comes first. The elk, deer, and bear we hunt need a refuge. We need to be stewards. Now the agency proposes to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and I am filing this comment in opposition to Docket FS-2025-0001 because that decision would open the very ground those animals depend on. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The areas I named in the Angeles National Forest, including Arroyo Seco, Strawberry Peak, Magic Mountain, and San Gabriel Add, and the Tuolumne River area in the Stanislaus, are part of that inventory. I spend weekends and holidays camping and hiking throughout the Angeles, Inyo, Tahoe, and Stanislaus forests to explore the natural beauty of California, and I want to keep experiencing it, others to experience it, and this land protected for the next hundred years and beyond. These mountains are where I photograph wildflowers in spring, deer, and one day a mountain lion. But mountain lions need protected forests and mountains to have a home. Roads are the core threat to that home. The agency's own record states that elk avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them, that ideal summer elk habitat is unroaded land with cover and forage, and that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. The DEIS also cites research finding that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed, and the rule's own Tribal record credits its protections with the recovery of deer populations in Alaska by preserving old-growth winter shelter. On bears, the DEIS quotes the federal grizzly recovery plan directly: increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation, and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. I ask that the agency explain, as part of the record before it closes, how rescinding the rule is consistent with these findings, each of which comes from its own documents. The wildfire rationale the proposal offers fares no better on its own terms. The agency's 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." That finding is the agency's own. I ask that it 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, and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings. The economic case is equally strained. The agency's record concedes: "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, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency must explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Across the Pacific Southwest region alone, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, a cost the proposal does not adequately account for. Finally, on statutory authority: a federal appellate court has already answered the question the proposal re-opens. 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 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. The agency must explain, with specificity, the legal basis for any contrary position it now takes. Sincerely, Elizabeth Harris San Jose, CA