Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609707

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's own DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contradict the proposed rescission by showing increased fire risk on roaded lands, a lack of net economic benefit due to a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, and a flawed regulatory flexibility analysis that fails to assess specific local businesses, while also establishing the commenter's reliance interest in the current 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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “wildlife corridors along Highway 395”
- “ecological integrity that the roadless designation protects”
- “verified species there include Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I backpack and hike in roadless areas”
- “I photograph what I find there: landscapes, alpine lakes, rivers, wildlife”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
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”
- “DEIS Table 21 data on fire density reinforces it”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests: Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Roadless areas: Cahuilla MountainHoover - Virginia LksIndependence CreekLakes BasinLog Cabin SaddlebagMono CratersRock Creek West

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The alpine lakes and wildlife corridors along Highway 395 are what I keep coming back to. I backpack and hike in roadless areas throughout this corridor, camping in the Saddlebag Lake area, in Virginia Lakes within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, and in the Twenty Lakes Basin. I photograph what I find there: landscapes, alpine lakes, rivers, wildlife. The areas I visit include the Hoover - Virginia Lks roadless area in the Humboldt-Toiyabe, as well as the Log Cabin Saddlebag, Independence Creek, Rock Creek West, Mono Craters, and Cahuilla Mountain roadless areas in the Inyo and San Bernardino National Forests. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. The Humboldt-Toiyabe is the largest national forest in the lower 48, scattered across mountain ranges that rise from the Great Basin like sky islands, each with its own water, its own ecology, its own wildlife. It holds 354 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,383,849 acres, and verified species there include Lahontan cutthroat trout, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and mountain goat. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres. The landscapes and wildlife I photograph depend on the ecological integrity that the roadless designation protects. Rescission would put all of that at risk, and the agency's own record does not support the move. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a rationale, but the agency's own analysis undermines that justification. The 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." That is the agency's finding, not mine. The DEIS Table 21 data on fire density reinforces it. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data its own environmental review produced. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The record itself 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's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency must explain, in direct response to this comment, how expanding a road network with that backlog behind it is justified when the agency's own analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The regulatory flexibility analysis compounds this problem. The agency's record acknowledges it: "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by averaging losses across every small firm in the relevant sector nationally, rather than assessing the guides, outfitters, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. The certification should be withdrawn and replaced with an analysis centered on the businesses actually operating in these roadless areas. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is such an interest. I have structured my backpacking, hiking, and photography around the protections the 2001 rule provides for the areas along Highway 395 where I travel. An agency changing course is required to assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before taking any further action on this proposal. Sincerely, James Jenkins Carlsbad, California