Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-576645

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule contradicts its own DEIS findings on wildfire ignition rates, fails to address legal deficiencies identified by the Ninth Circuit regarding state-by-state frameworks, lacks quantified evidence for administrative burden claims, and improperly excludes foreseeable plan amendments from environmental review despite soliciting comment on them.

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, 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”
- “A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands”
- “Opening any portion of that landscape to road construction on wildfire grounds runs directly against the ignition data”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit reviewed the last time the agency attempted to replace the national rule with a state-specific framework and found it deficient”
- “The agency has not explained how a successor state-by-state process avoids repeating the legal deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “That is not a coherent procedure”
- “The agency must analyze the plan-amendment scenario... as part of this action”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “An analysis that brackets the most predictable outcome and simultaneously solicits comment on it is not a serious environmental review”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I want my students, and the generation they represent, to have the same freedom to explore wild places that people have had until now”
- “The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects that”

What it names

Roadless areas: Coyote SoutheastGlass MountainKings River
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 The nine inventoried roadless areas I am writing about sit in California's national forests: Boundary Peak in the Inyo, Sespe-Frazier in the Los Padres, Paiute in the Inyo, Carson-Iceberg in the Stanislaus, Rincon in the Sequoia, Siskiyou in the Klamath, Coyote Southeast in the Inyo, Kings River in the Sierra, and Glass Mountain in the Inyo. I teach middle school science, and the reason these places matter to me is straightforward: I want my students, and the generation they represent, to have the same freedom to explore wild places that people have had until now. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects that. The proposal to rescind it does not, and I oppose it. The agency offers wildfire management as a partial justification for rescission, treating roads as a tool for fuels work. Its own prior record says the opposite. The agency's 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 areas I named, spread across the Inyo, Los Padres, Stanislaus, Sequoia, Klamath, and Sierra national forests, lie within California, which holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. Opening any portion of that landscape to road construction on wildfire grounds runs directly against the ignition data in the agency's own analysis. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and reconcile the rescission with the fire-density data reported in DEIS Table 21. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule. The agency's own record states: "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." That dissatisfaction was litigated. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the last time the agency attempted to replace the national rule with a state-specific framework and found it deficient. California's roadless areas are not interchangeable with one another, let alone with areas in other states, but the protection they carry under a national rule is the thing that has held. The agency has not explained how a successor state-by-state process avoids repeating the legal deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified. I ask that it do so, specifically addressing how local decision-making on an area-by-area basis does not incrementally erode the nationally significant values the rule was written to protect. The proposal also cites permitting complexity and administrative burden. The rule as written already accommodates exceptions. The agency's own description of it states: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The areas I listed include some of the largest roadless blocks remaining in California's national forests, places like the 210,884-acre Boundary Peak area and the 106,910-acre Sespe-Frazier area. The case for rescission based on administrative burden requires the agency to show which specific burdens the existing exceptions do not already address. It has not done that. The agency must identify those burdens by category on the record and quantify them, rather than asserting their weight without evidence. Finally, the proposal itself acknowledges that plan amendments and revisions following rescission "could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed," then declares those plan changes beyond the scope of this proceeding, then asks for public comment on them anyway. The agency's own description notes: "The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions 'could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed,' declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830)." That is not a coherent procedure. The foreseeable consequence of this rescission is expanded timber harvest and road construction across inventoried roadless areas. In the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. An analysis that brackets the most predictable outcome and simultaneously solicits comment on it is not a serious environmental review. The agency must analyze the plan-amendment scenario, including expanded harvest and construction, as part of this action, not as a future contingency placed beyond the public's reach in this proceeding. Samantha Davidson, CA