Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-333788

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific economic, biological, and water quality deficiencies in the agency's analysis of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule rescission, citing internal data on negative net present value, bird abundance loss, and sediment risks to municipal water intakes, while requesting a reconciliation of these findings with the proposal's justification.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “places I hike, watch birds and wildflowers, pick berries, and find solitude”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Water Quality Quantity
- “relies on a healthy watershed on Forest Service lands”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “risking that contamination seems, to use my own word, criminal”
Wildlife Habitat
- “interior forest habitat that supports bird richness”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “An action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit has no economic justification”

What it names

National Forests: Siuslaw National Forest
Roadless areas: Bull Of The WoodsDrift Creek
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

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 The Drift Creek roadless area in the Siuslaw National Forest, the Bull of the Woods and Menagerie areas in the Willamette, these are places I hike, watch birds and wildflowers, pick berries, and find solitude. They are the reason I am writing to oppose Docket FS-2025-0001, the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I spent 35 years as a career employee of the United States Forest Service. That history makes me careful about how public money is spent, and what I see in this proposal does not add up. 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." Those are not the numbers of an economic emergency. Yet the proposal would expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, with an annual road budget of roughly $73 million, in pursuit of revenues the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects at $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber receipts, against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. An action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit has no economic justification I can find. I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal with that analysis and explain how adding new road inventory to an already failing maintenance obligation serves the public interest. The agency also argues that the rule creates permitting and administrative burdens, but the rule already provides exceptions. As the record states, it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." If those exceptions are insufficient, the agency should be able to name which specific burdens they fail to address and place a number on those burdens. I ask that the agency do exactly that before proceeding. Birds are one of the reasons I go to these forests. The Siuslaw and Willamette roadless areas hold the kind of interior forest habitat that supports bird richness, and the DEIS itself cites research finding that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely, and that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Opening them to road construction is not a minor adjustment. The agency should explain how it weighed those documented biological costs against the marginal economic gains its own analysis struggles to confirm. I live in a community that relies on a healthy watershed on Forest Service lands. Clean water is not optional, and across the Pacific Northwest, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analysis shows that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Building more roads into these watersheds and risking that contamination seems, to use my own word, criminal. The agency has not explained how it will protect those intakes and the communities depending on them. The regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS identifies outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and the Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification was reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The analysis concedes some firms may lose those receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and conduct an honest assessment of the small businesses operating in these specific places. Finally, the agency's proposal 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. The most important thing the Forest Service can do is pass on healthy ecosystems to future generations. We are already experiencing major habitat loss and increasing pressure from climate change. The last thing we need is to lift protections on these lands, and the agency must weigh that interest, and the interests described in every similar comment it receives, before it acts. Sincerely, Don Kuhns Corvallis, OR