Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-554031

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's draft EIS data (Table 21) and cost-benefit analysis contradict the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule by showing higher fire risks on roaded lands and a lack of net economic benefit, while citing specific locations in the Sierra Nevada and legal precedents to argue the rule should remain in place.

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
- “watched bears move through timber, tracked deer across open ground, and looked up at elk on ridgelines”
- “know what fire does to bear habitat, to the cover elk depend on, to the granite drainages that deer migrate through”
- “The bears and elk I have encountered in the Kings River drainage... do not observe administrative boundaries”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “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”
- “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress provided under the Organic Act”
- “The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the specific deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “The agency owes a direct, on-the-record explanation of its legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”

What it names

Roadless areas: Black Mtn.Greenhorn CreekKings RiverLion RidgeMill CreekSlate Mtn.
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 gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Sierra Nevada is where I go to remember what the world is supposed to look like. I hike, backpack, and camp across its National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and National Parks, moving through places like Black Mtn., Lion Ridge, Greenhorn Creek, Slate Mtn., Chico, Mill Creek, and the Kings River country in Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. I have stood in those places and watched bears move through timber, tracked deer across open ground, and looked up at elk on ridgelines. I have heard grouse and wild turkeys and birds of so many varieties because I was somewhere far from mass human noise, somewhere animals still live their lives. It breaks my heart to imagine how those places will look if they are opened to roads. All for "better, easier access." That is the phrase that keeps coming back to me, and I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's stated rationale for rescission includes wildfire and fuels management. But the agency's own record says something different. Its draft environmental impact statement 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 have walked through the burned-out corridors in these forests. I know what fire does to bear habitat, to the cover elk depend on, to the granite drainages that deer migrate through. The agency must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land, and explain why the proposal departs from these findings rather than following them. The economic case for rescission is just as hard to square with the agency's own numbers. Its record states 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 gains that small, 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, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. I want to know how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system that the agency cannot currently afford to maintain. The agency argues that state-by-state approaches can do what one national rule does. But the record contains the agency's own acknowledgment of what happened the last time it tried 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." Local and incremental decision-making, the agency's own prior analysis found, can reduce nationally significant roadless values one project at a time, in ways that no single review catches. The bears and elk I have encountered in the Kings River drainage at 52,999 acres and the contiguous Greenhorn Creek country at 28,226 acres do not observe administrative boundaries. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the specific deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time a state-by-state scheme replaced the national rule. On statutory authority, the agency contends the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. The court record says otherwise. 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 provided under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency owes a direct, on-the-record explanation of its legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. We shouldn't interfere with what still exists in these places. The agency should leave the 2001 rule in place. Sincerely, Kenna Watkins Visalia, California