Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-607900

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific geographic locations in California, cites DEIS Table 21 and the agency's own cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that the proposal contradicts the agency's findings on wildfire ignition and economic net benefit, and requests an explanation for departing from prior legal and scientific findings before rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 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, 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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “Adding roads into them to reduce fire risk contradicts the agency's own ignition data”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “each range a sky island carrying its own water, its own ecology, its own wildlife”
    • “including Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat”
    • “local decision-making can incrementally erode roadless values that are nationally significant”
  • 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 and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “Forest Service road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “degraded watershed function is a cost the agency's numbers do not adequately capture”
    • “support connected watersheds”

What it names

National Forests
Eldorado National ForestHumboldt-Toiyabe National ForestLake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Roadless areas
Caples CreekRaymond PeakSalt SpringsWaterhouse B
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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas I am naming in this comment are real places I care about: Pyramid in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Dardanelles, Caples Creek, Tragedy-Elephants Back, Salt Springs, Rubicon, and Raymond Peak in the Eldorado National Forest, Freel in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and Mokelumne-Hawkins Peak and Waterhouse B in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The Humboldt-Toiyabe alone holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, scattered across mountain ranges that rise from the Great Basin desert like islands in a sea of sagebrush, each range a sky island carrying its own water, its own ecology, its own wildlife, including Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of this at risk, and the agency's own record does not support that step. The proposal argues that opening roadless areas to road construction will help manage wildfire. The agency's own findings say otherwise. Its 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." The areas I have named, from the dry Sierra Nevada flanks of the Eldorado to the sky islands of the Humboldt-Toiyabe, already face fire pressure. Adding roads into them to reduce fire risk contradicts the agency's own ignition data, reported in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with that data. The economic case is no stronger. The agency's own analysis records 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." Against that marginal production, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service 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. The Forest Service road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Across the Pacific Southwest region, which includes California, 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and degraded watershed function is a cost the agency's numbers do not adequately capture. The agency must reconcile this proposal with an economic record that cannot demonstrate the action is worth its price. The argument that state-by-state rulemaking can substitute for a national rule has been tried before. The record itself shows 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 state-petition approach was subsequently reviewed by the Ninth Circuit and found wanting, in part because local decision-making can incrementally erode roadless values that are nationally significant. The areas I have named cross administrative boundaries and support connected watersheds. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the deficiencies identified the last time it tried to replace national protection with a state-level substitute, and it should do so. Finally, the proposal questions whether the agency had statutory authority to issue the 2001 rule. That question has been litigated. 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." The court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and held it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency has not explained what legal basis supports a contrary position now. That explanation belongs in this record before any rescission moves forward. Sincerely, Concerned Citizen South Lake Tahoe, CA

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless