Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604239

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 10/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk, economic benefits, and wildlife impacts that the agency has failed to reconcile in its proposal to rescind the Roadless 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, 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”
- “wild turkeys... lose the most when that structure is broken”
- “deer... face disrupted migration routes”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale... cannot be reconciled”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely... on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk... could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected... is less than 0.5 percent”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “net present value whose own range spans from negative to positive”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found it wanting”
- “Tenth Circuit... held the 2001 rule was within the authority”
- “state-by-state approach... has a history”
- “address that holding squarely”

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 Public lands must be managed with a sharp eye toward preservation and protection for generations to come, not exploited as assets on a balance sheet. That is not a sentiment. It is the standard against which this rescission fails, and I am writing to oppose it. I live adjacent to State Forest lands on five wooded acres. Despite my disability, birdwatching is accessible to me precisely because the landscape around me still functions. Over the last decade, as building increased habitat loss, I have watched the diversity of my local bird population decline. Tufted titmice, white-breasted nuthatches, American goldfinches, Eastern bluebirds, black-capped chickadees, mourning doves, hummingbirds, turkeys, northern flickers, and hawks still use the property, as do foxes, deer, and chipmunks, year after year treating it as a nursery. That word, nursery, is the right one. What I watch on five wooded acres depends on what is protected at scale. 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 wild turkeys that cross my land, and the complex forest structure they depend on for mast, are named in the DEIS among the species that lose the most when that structure is broken. The deer that use my property as a nursery face disrupted migration routes and lost unroaded security if this rescission proceeds: the agency's own record, citing Wyoming research, documents that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. I ask the agency to explain in this proceeding how those documented effects on birds and deer are consistent with a decision to open roadless areas to road construction. The wildfire rationale offered for this rescission cannot be reconciled with the agency's own record. The 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." If the agency is using fire management to justify rescission, it must explain why its proposal departs from that finding and reconcile the proposed action with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. On the economics, 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." Selling timber from these areas has always been a losing proposition. Water once fouled never returns to purity regardless of remediation, and the record projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value whose own range spans from negative to positive. The agency must explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is justified when its own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The state-by-state approach advanced here has a history. The agency's record reflects 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 approach was tried and the Ninth Circuit found it wanting. The agency needs to confront its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values and explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. On statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit was direct: "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." That court held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must explain the basis for any contrary position and address that holding squarely. The Roadless Rule was implemented to stop and prevent degradation of our watersheds and our forests. Rescinding it, on economic justifications the agency's own numbers undercut and on wildfire logic the agency's own data contradict, is not management. It is the balance-sheet thinking that public lands were never meant to serve. Sincerely, Beth Conry Milford, Pennsylvania 18337