Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-583643

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's draft environmental impact statement and cost-benefit analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk and net economic benefits, and documents the commenter's request for the agency to reconcile these data points and address prior judicial holdings before proceeding with the rescission.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “calmest and most peaceful places I have ever visited”
- “Camping in roadless country there is one of the only ways I have to truly escape”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “quiet up there, with no sound except the wind”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “showcase of the liveliness of a desert ecosystem”
- “pronghorns and rabbits move through the sagebrush”
- “these are not recoverable if lost”
- “Nobody gets to see it how God made it”
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”
- “Introducing roads into that network does not protect it from fire”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “courts rejected it”
- “deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “state-specific rulemaking can replace a national rule is also a matter of settled record”

What it names

National Forests: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Roadless areas: Toiyabe Range
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 gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The undeveloped areas of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are some of the calmest and most peaceful places I have ever visited. Camping in roadless country there is one of the only ways I have to truly escape. Arc Dome is a very special place: it's quiet up there, with no sound except the wind, and an astounding view, and at night I can sit and look at the sky and the moonlit desert and mountains and feel at peace with everything. The Toiyabe Range as a whole is a showcase of the liveliness of a desert ecosystem, where pronghorns and rabbits move through the sagebrush and pinon pines in ways you don't get to see very many places. When I photograph these landscapes, I am looking for places that have been the same for longer than any living person can remember. Those places are becoming fewer and fewer in number as time goes on, and that is exactly why I oppose this rescission. The agency's own record undermines its stated rationale for rolling back protections. The proposal invokes wildfire management as partial justification, yet the 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." The Humboldt-Toiyabe is the largest national forest in the lower 48, covering mountain ranges that rise from the Great Basin like sky islands in a sea of sagebrush, each with its own ecology and wildlife. The 354 inventoried roadless areas across this forest total 3,383,849 acres. Introducing roads into that network does not protect it from fire; the agency's own data say the opposite. I ask that the agency explain how this proposal departs from that prior finding and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is no stronger. The record reflects 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." Arc Dome alone spans 74,782 acres; the Toiyabe Range covers 99,225 acres. These are not marginal parcels. The agency must reconcile this proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The argument that state-specific rulemaking can replace a national rule is also a matter of settled record. The agency's own prior proceedings acknowledged 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." That experiment was tried, and the courts rejected it. The agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain what this proposal does differently to avoid the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the national rule was replaced with a state-by-state approach. On the question of legal authority, a federal appellate court has already answered it: "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 held that 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. I expect the agency to address that holding directly and to state the basis for any contrary legal position. We only get one chance at this. Once these things are damaged, that's it. Nobody gets to see it how God made it, because someone, somewhere, decided His creation wasn't worth preserving, and that it'd be better to log it or pave over it for a few dollars in their pocket. The Humboldt-Toiyabe's roadless ranges, the desert sky above Arc Dome, the pronghorns moving through the Toiyabe sagebrush: these are not recoverable if lost. I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal. Sincerely, Devin Wilson Forest Knolls, CA