Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609727

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition risks, wildlife habitat loss (specifically deer and birds), and net economic benefits, and documents the legal precedent (Tenth Circuit) affirming the validity of the 2001 Roadless Rule under the Organic Act and MUSYA.

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
- “see rabbit, coyotes, deer, foxes, and birds moving through country that roads have not yet broken apart”
- “rescinding the rule would expose deer in forests like the Los Padres to exactly the disrupted migration and lost unroaded security”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
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 than on essentially unroaded lands”
- “ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the record shows reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
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 spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Ninth Circuit already reviewed a state-by-state replacement and found it wanting”
- “Tenth Circuit held otherwise... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “court's holding that the 2001 rule fell within authority granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”

What it names

National Forests: Los Padres 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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Sespe Wilderness in the Los Padres National Forest is where I go to find untouched nature. The quiet there is real. I hike and camp in those public lands because I can still see rabbit, coyotes, deer, foxes, and birds moving through country that roads have not yet broken apart. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for this proposal. 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 opening roadless areas to new construction increases ignition risk by that magnitude, the agency must explain why it is advancing a proposal that its own findings predict will make fire more likely, and it must reconcile that explanation 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. The deer I see in the Los Padres matter to this analysis. The DEIS cites research finding that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. The agency's own record also credits the rule's protections with contributing to the recovery of deer populations in Alaska by preserving old-growth winter shelter. Rescinding the rule would expose deer in forests like the Los Padres to exactly the disrupted migration and lost unroaded security that the agency's own citations document. I ask that the agency explain what specific habitat and wildlife findings support departing from that record where deer are concerned. Birds are the other reason I go out there. 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 Los Padres holds birds I can currently find in places that roads have not reached. What assurance does the agency offer that rescinding this rule will not produce the abundance and richness losses its own cited research predicts? The economics do not support rescission either. 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." 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 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 expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is justified when the agency's own numbers cannot establish a net benefit. The legal footing for rescission is no stronger. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but 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 already reviewed a state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values and explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. On authority, the proposal argues the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress permitted. The Tenth Circuit held otherwise, and its own words are clear: "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 agency must address that court's holding that the 2001 rule fell within authority granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness, and state plainly what legal basis supports a contrary position now. The Los Padres is peaceful because it is intact. I want it to stay that way. The agency has not answered its own record, and it should. The Roadless Rule should not be rescinded. Sincerely, Mitchell Johnson Ojai, California