Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-584491

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, economic net present value, and legal authority, while citing specific geographic locations (Fishlake National Forest, Kern River, Utah roadless areas) and demanding reconciliation of the proposal with the agency's own prior findings and court rulings.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “expose them to the sediment runoff”
- “degraded water quality that new road access brings”
- “1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “costs of degraded source water are real”
Wildlife Habitat
- “habitat fragmentation”
- “wild turkey and ruffed grouse as species that depend on complex forest structure”
- “Northern Spotted Owl and other threatened owl species”
- “fragmenting wildlife habitat”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “backlog of billions of dollars in maintenance for roads already built”
- “not a responsible use of public funds”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “federal appellate court has already reviewed and rejected that argument”
- “Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit already found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”
- “agency must explain what legal basis it now relies on”

What it names

National Forests: Fishlake 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 placeAnalytical gapRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Fishing has been part of my life from the beginning, passed down from my father and his father before him. From the streams of Fishlake National Forest in Utah to the Kern River in California, I have watched how mountain waters respond to what happens on the slopes above them. These places are vulnerable, and the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would expose them to the sediment runoff, habitat fragmentation, and degraded water quality that new road access brings. This is not where tax dollars are needed, and I oppose this rescission. My husband and I hike and camp in our national forests, not only in California. We watch for eagles, falcons, woodpeckers, and grouse. The grouse matter here in particular. The agency's own record identifies wild turkey and ruffed grouse as species that depend on complex forest structure with mast-producing trees, and notes that sage grouse show strong site fidelity that limits how far they can adapt when habitat changes. Utah alone holds 222 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,013,529 acres. Rescission would open that landscape to fragmentation that birds like these cannot simply move around. The Northern Spotted Owl and other threatened owl species in our national forests face the same pressure from habitat degradation. I ask the agency to explain, in specific terms, what its analysis projects for upland bird populations and threatened owl species as road access increases in these areas. 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 proposal invokes wildfire management as one justification for rescission. Those two things cannot stand together without explanation. I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with its own ignition data and explain why it is departing from findings that appear in its own record. On the economics, the agency has already found 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." The Forest Service's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the agency of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. That range does not establish a net benefit. Across the Intermountain region, which includes Utah, 1,466 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and the costs of degraded source water are real. Building new roads into country where none exist, destroying sensitive ecosystems and fragmenting wildlife habitat, while carrying a backlog of billions of dollars in maintenance for roads already built, is not a responsible use of public funds. The agency must explain on the record how a proposal whose own economic analysis cannot confirm a positive outcome justifies expanding infrastructure the agency cannot currently maintain. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but the agency's record documents its own prior dissatisfaction with exactly that logic, noting "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 already found that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency needs to address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies that court identified the last time a state-by-state approach was attempted. Finally, the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority, but a federal appellate court has already reviewed and rejected that argument. That court stated: "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. The agency must explain what legal basis it now relies on to reach a contrary conclusion. Public lands belong to the people and should be managed for our use and enjoyment. No private interest outweighs that obligation, and the abundant wildlife within these forests depends on it.