Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608874

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own prior findings on wildfire risk and cost-benefit analysis, and fails to address the legal precedents from the Tenth and Ninth Circuits regarding the rule's validity and the inadequacy of state-by-state approaches.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “forests with roads face a measurably higher fire risk”
- “fighting those fires drains taxpayer dollars in ways that are avoidable”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “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”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “courts rejected it”
- “Tenth Circuit held: 'Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order'”
- “found the rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act”
- “agency's current proposal rests in part on an authority argument the Tenth Circuit already rejected”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “These places are sacred, and they are meant to be enjoyed as they are”
- “without development and without roads cutting into country that has none”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “The agency has not shown that rescission serves the public that uses them”

What it names

National Forests: Angeles National Forest
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 The Angeles National Forest is where I spend my weekends. The Inyo is where my bucket list trips point. These places are sacred, and they are meant to be enjoyed as they are, without development and without roads cutting into country that has none. The agency's own record undermines its wildfire rationale for rescission. The 2001 rule is being dismantled in part on the grounds that roadless areas need road access for fuels management and fire response. But the agency found, in its own prior analysis: "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." I came to this comment with the same concern from a different direction: forests with roads face a measurably higher fire risk, and fighting those fires drains taxpayer dollars in ways that are avoidable. The agency must explain why the current proposal departs from its own prior findings, and must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not support rescission either. The agency has already found 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." That is the return on offer. Against it sits a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, funded at roughly $73 million a year. Opening new roads into the Angeles, the Inyo, and every other affected forest to capture a share of less than half a percent of national timber output is a waste of resources and money. The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which 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 and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already in that condition. The agency has also been down the road of replacing national protection with a state-by-state approach, and the courts rejected it. Rather than reproducing the agency's own language on that history, I will state the point plainly: the record shows that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values in ways that aggregate into large and irreversible loss. The agency must address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time a state-specific framework was substituted for the national rule, and it must answer that question directly rather than treating the prior litigation as settled against the rule's supporters. On statutory authority, the courts that examined the question did not find the 2001 rule unlawful. 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 found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency's current proposal rests in part on an authority argument the Tenth Circuit already rejected. What is the legal basis for a contrary position, and where in this record does the agency address that holding? These lands are meant to be protected. The agency has not shown that rescission serves the public that uses them. Sincerely, Whitney San Diego, CA