Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579952

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific challenge to the agency's rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, citing internal contradictions in the DEIS regarding wildfire ignition data (Table 21), economic cost-benefit figures, and prior legal holdings regarding the validity of the 2001 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”
    • “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Wildlife depends on roadless habitat remaining genuinely roadless”
    • “open roads increase shooting, habituation, and food reward”
    • “secondary unpaved roads raise the contact and conflict that can ultimately end in bear mortality”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “The Tenth Circuit held: 'Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order'”
    • “state explicitly the basis for any position to the contrary”
    • “failure in that approach is not either”

What it names

National Forests
Sierra 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 placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I have spent my adult life hiking and exploring the Sierra National Forest, watching for Stellar's Jay, black bear tracks, identifying endemic plant life, and enjoying the greatest example of pristine nature our public lands have to offer. The agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens all of that, and it does so on grounds the agency's own record cannot support. The wildfire rationale the agency offers is the most striking example. The agency's own 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." The Sierra National Forest has seen what fire can do. If the agency's position is that opening roadless areas serves fire management, I ask that it explain, in direct response to this comment, why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case fares no better. 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 those figures, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile those numbers and explain, plainly and on the record, how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies this course. The agency's preference for a state-by-state approach over a national rule is not new, and its failure in that approach is not either. The record quotes the agency's own prior position: "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 Ninth Circuit has already reviewed what happens when the national rule is replaced with local decision-making. The agency has made no showing that this proposal avoids those deficiencies. It should be required to address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. On the question of authority, the agency argues that the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. Courts that reviewed that question reached a different 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." The agency should address that holding directly, including the court's conclusions regarding the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and state explicitly the basis for any position to the contrary. Wildlife depends on roadless habitat remaining genuinely roadless. The agency's own record, drawing on the federal grizzly recovery plan, documents that open roads increase shooting, habituation, and food reward, and that even secondary unpaved roads raise the contact and conflict that can ultimately end in bear mortality. The endemic plants and the wildlife of the Sierra are not abstractions. They exist in a landscape the 2001 rule was designed to protect, and that the agency has not come close to showing should be left unprotected. I oppose this rescission. Sincerely, Qixin Lang Fresno, CA

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless