Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609940

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's draft environmental impact statement contains internal contradictions regarding bird abundance, water quality, economic net benefits, and wildfire risk that have not been reconciled, and documents the legal precedent affirming the 2001 Roadless Rule's statutory authority under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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
- “Birdwatchers seek wilderness to find the rarest birds”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
Water Quality Quantity
- “unspoiled, beautiful waterways”
- “More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these roadless areas”
- “drinking water originates in these watersheds”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “seek wilderness areas to hike and camp for solitude, quiet, and respite”
- “enjoyable for kayaking, canoeing, and other forms of recreational paddling”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
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 from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”

What it names

Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

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 roadless rule protects the increasingly globally rare expanses of wild spaces that are what truly makes this country special. I and millions like me seek wilderness areas to hike and camp for solitude, quiet, and respite, and the proposal now before this agency would strip the protection that makes those places worth seeking. I am writing to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I ask that the record reflect the following. Birdwatchers seek wilderness to find the rarest birds, ones most sensitive to human impact. We bring our cameras, our tourist money, and our social media accounts into these places, and the science in the agency's own record explains why roads destroy what draws us 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. (Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) The agency must explain how rescission of the rule is consistent with this evidence in its own draft environmental impact statement, and whether it considered the economic value that birdwatchers and wildlife tourists bring to communities adjacent to these areas. The rivers, lakes, and streams within these landscapes are only enjoyable for kayaking, canoeing, and other forms of recreational paddling if they remain the unspoiled, beautiful waterways the roadless rule is meant to help ensure. Nobody wants to paddle listening to ATVs and truck engines. We want to listen to the water. And the water quality question goes further than recreation. This country already has enough water quality issues without introducing yet more pollution further upstream. More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain how it weighs that finding against the interests of the millions of Americans whose drinking water originates in these watersheds. On the economic justification for this action, the agency's own record states 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." 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 numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The wildfire rationale offered for rescission fares no better in the agency's own record. The DEIS states that "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 agency has not explained why the proposal departs from these prior findings, nor has it reconciled the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. That reconciliation belongs in this record. The state-by-state alternative the agency now prefers has been tried before, and the agency's own prior rulemaking acknowledged 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." The Ninth Circuit reviewed that approach and found it wanting. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. Finally, the proposal's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded statutory authority runs directly into the Tenth Circuit's judgment, which stated: "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 Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency's basis for any contrary reading of its own authority must be stated plainly and defended in this proceeding. Our public lands are for the public, not for any one man or any powerful group of oligarchs. Our wilderness is quite literally irreplaceable, and we want it protected. Sincerely, Dr. Suzanne Scherping Baltimore, Maryland