Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-276344

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding bird and ungulate impacts, wildfire ignition data from DEIS Table 21, and economic projections, while citing the Tenth Circuit's holding on the Organic Act and MUSYA to challenge the legal basis for rescinding the 2001 Roadless 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, Evidence.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “elk avoid areas near roads”
- “roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes”
- “depend on unroaded forest”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale for this rescission is contradicted”
- “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”
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”
- “net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit... held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit reviewed the state-by-state replacement and found it wanting”
- “agency's current proposal implies a contrary reading of that authority”
- “explain why the Tenth Circuit's holding does not control”

What it names

National Forests: Siuslaw National Forest
Roadless areas: Drift CreekHebo 1a

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Counting hawks and eagles as I travel through the Cascades, from Mount Rainier down to Mount Shasta, and watching for deer and elk along the rivers of Oregon, I have come to understand that some lands are worth protecting precisely because they are unroaded. The Siuslaw National Forest on the Oregon coast, including the Drift Creek roadless area of 6,333 acres and the Hebo 1a area of 13,930 acres, is part of what I go back to. The Willamette, McKenzie, and Umpqua rivers are my go-to for joy. These are not abstract places to me. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule puts all of it at risk, and I oppose this proposal. The birds I watch every time I am out depend on unroaded forest in ways the agency itself has documented. 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 Siuslaw coast is exactly the kind of habitat those findings describe. Drift Creek and Hebo 1a sit inside a forest I return to for bird and wildlife photos and what I can only call once-in-a-lifetime experiences. I ask the agency to explain how it accounts for these documented, citation-supported impacts on bird communities when justifying a rule that would open these specific areas to road construction. Deer and elk matter to me the same way. The agency's own analysis, citing Rowland, Unsworth, and Cole, found that elk avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them, and that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. The DEIS also cites Wyoming research finding that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. Deer and elk are always a treat to see, and that treat depends on the security of unroaded land. The agency must say directly what its current analysis shows about ungulate populations in the Siuslaw and Umpqua forests if those protections are lifted. The wildfire rationale for this rescission is contradicted by the agency's own record. 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." The proposal justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds, but the agency's own ignition data, reported in DEIS Table 21, shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from those findings. The economics do not hold up either. The DEIS itself 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's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. Oregon alone holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and 1,522 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. How does expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog serve the public interest when the agency's own numbers cannot confirm it does? The legal history here is not ambiguous. The agency's own record quotes the USDA's prior dissatisfaction: "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 the state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. The Tenth Circuit went further: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 held the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA, and that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency's current proposal implies a contrary reading of that authority. It needs to state that position plainly and explain why the Tenth Circuit's holding does not control. These forests and rivers are where I find something I cannot get elsewhere. I am asking this agency to defend its own data before it discards a rule that has protected them for decades.