Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602861

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with its own DEIS findings regarding bird abundance, wildfire ignition risks, and economic net benefits, while failing to adequately assess impacts on specific small businesses in the affected Inyo, Eldorado, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “Birds are part of what those roadless areas protect”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “Roadless areas in this country allow wildlife and birds to exist in habitat that remains more pristine”
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”
- “reconcile this action with the fire density data reported in DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Governance Policy Process
- “The Ninth Circuit has already reviewed what happened when the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach and found it wanting”
- “The agency must address the deficiencies identified in that prior litigation”
- “The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally”

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The national forests I hike and camp in, Inyo, Eldorado, and Humboldt-Toiyabe, are some of the most treasured places in this state. They deserve protection from roads built for resource extraction and corporate profit. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask this agency to respond to the following. The Humboldt-Toiyabe is the largest national forest in the lower 48. It holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, scattered across mountain ranges that rise from the Great Basin like islands from a sea of sagebrush. Each range is its own sky island with its own water, its own ecology, its own wildlife. Birds are part of what those roadless areas protect, and the agency's own record makes clear how badly roads harm them. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. Adding roads to places like the Humboldt-Toiyabe, where birds still exist in habitat that is more pristine, would set that damage in motion. I ask the agency to explain in this docket how the rescission is consistent with its own documented findings on roads and bird abundance. The proposal points to wildfire and fuels management as a justification for rescission. The agency's own 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." That finding is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement. The proposal departs from it without reconciling it. I ask that the agency explain, in its final record, why the rescission moves forward against its own prior findings on ignition risk, and that it reconcile this action with the fire density data reported in DEIS Table 21. The economic case for rescission is weaker than the proposal lets on. 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." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis 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, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The agency is also proposing to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does it justify that cost to the public for a share of national production that its own numbers describe as negligible? The agency must address this contradiction directly before it finalizes any action. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. But the agency's own record shows it has been down this road before. It 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." The Ninth Circuit has already reviewed what happened when the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach and found it wanting. The agency must address the deficiencies identified in that prior litigation and explain how this proposal avoids repeating them. Finally, the proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. That is not a genuine assessment. The agency should withdraw the certification and evaluate the actual small businesses operating in the roadless areas at stake, not a national average that dilutes the real harm. Roadless areas in this country allow wildlife and birds to exist in habitat that remains more pristine. Fuel corporate greed by opening those places to roads and extraction, and that is gone. I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal. Sincerely, A concerned citizen Boulder Creek, CA