Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604216

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk, economic net benefits, and legal authority, and requests specific responses reconciling the proposed rescission with the agency's own cited data and prior judicial holdings.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
- “forested habitat that depends on the absence of roads”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk... could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
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”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit... held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit rejected it”
- “local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values”
- “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”

What it names

Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 Going into nature is how I stay connected to my own humanity and to my place on this small, fragile planet. It grounds me and allows me to feel the connection we share with all things that are part of our home. Part of that for me is learning to identify bird calls and observing wild animals at a respectable distance. The birds I try to identify live in forested habitat that depends on the absence of roads, and the agency's own record makes that dependency plain. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the agency to respond to each of the points below. 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. The agency is proposing to open these landscapes to road construction while its own science documents what roads do to the birds that live there. I want to know how the agency accounts for that harm, and I ask that it respond in the record to how these findings factor into the decision. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a justification for rescission, but the agency's own 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." That finding cuts directly against the argument the agency is making. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, 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 is equally difficult to square. 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 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, and this is before accounting for a road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion. The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit. I ask that it reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain how expanding a road system already carrying that backlog is justified by revenues this small. On the question of state-specific alternatives to a national rule, the agency's own record notes 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." The agency tried this before and the Ninth Circuit rejected it. The agency has its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values. This proposal does not address that deficiency, and the agency should explain how it avoids repeating it. Finally, the proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit addressed that question directly and 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 court found 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 owes the public a clear explanation of the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. The forests I walk in to stay connected to this planet, and the birds I listen for there, depend on these protections remaining in place. The agency should not rescind this rule without answering each of these questions directly. Sincerely, Katie O’Brien Rohnert Park, California