Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-607682

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's Draft EIS contains internal contradictions regarding bird abundance, wildfire ignition rates, sediment production, and economic net benefits, and cites specific legal holdings (Tenth Circuit) and regulatory citations (70 Fed. Reg. 25,656) to argue that the proposed rescission is inconsistent with the agency's own record and statutory authority.

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”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Clean water is a universal human right”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “Fewer roads mean cleaner source water”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk... could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit has already examined a state-by-state replacement and found it wanting”
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “explain why that holding does not govern here”

What it names

National Forests: Angeles National Forest
Roadless areas: Arroyo SecoMagic Mountain
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 Public land should be managed for wildlife diversity, conservation, and to be enjoyed by future generations. The proposal before the agency fails all three of those purposes, and it fails them using the agency's own record. 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. That is not a peripheral finding. It is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, and it speaks directly to the kind of habitat that keeps Arroyo Seco and Magic Mountain worth entering. These areas sit within Angeles National Forest, part of a state that holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The birds I photograph are sensitive to exactly the disturbance that roads introduce. The agency must explain how opening these landscapes to road construction is consistent with the bird abundance and species-avoidance data already in its record. On wildfire, the agency's own text 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 justifies rescission partly on fuels and fire management grounds. That justification runs directly into the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain on the record why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and reconcile the rescission with those numbers. Clean water is a universal human right. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Fewer roads mean cleaner source water. That relationship is not speculative; it is in the agency's own data. The agency must address that relationship directly, and state plainly how the rescission protects, rather than degrades, the source water those intakes depend on. The economic case does not hold together either. The agency's 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." Against those marginal extraction volumes, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile the proposal with an analysis that cannot establish a net benefit and explain how expanding a deficit-carrying road network is justified by figures this small. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for one national rule, and invokes what it describes as a preference for flexibility over uniformity. The agency's own record 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 examined a state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies identified in that litigation. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority. A court already answered that. The Tenth Circuit 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." That court found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and concluded it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state the legal basis for any position to the contrary, and explain why that holding does not govern here. Sincerely, Kaitlin Callahan North Hollywood , Ca