Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-343178

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis by citing DEIS Table 21 ignition data and cost-benefit figures that contradict the proposal's rationale, and requests the agency reconcile these internal inconsistencies and address binding appellate precedent upholding the 2001 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

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

Public Health Wellbeing
- “essential for mental health”
- “destruction of nature harms them further”
- “mental health of people who live near and visit”
- “places where people can still find quiet, clean forest”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “quieter and safer from ignition precisely because roads do not cross them”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “federal appellate court reversed and remanded”
- “found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency has not identified what has changed in the underlying law”
- “binding appellate precedent upholding it”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests: Gifford Pinchot National Forest Mt. Hood National Forest
Roadless areas: Canton CreekCougar BluffHardesty MountainSilver StarSmith UmpquaWilliams Creek
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Time in nature, away from roads that bring noise, pollution, and disturbance to forests and wildlife, is essential for mental health. As a mental health professional, I see firsthand how Oregonians are struggling, and how the destruction of nature harms them further. The roadless areas I care about, including Larch, Salmon-Huckleberry, and Lake in the Mt. Hood National Forest, Siouxon, Silver Star, and Bourbon in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and Smith Umpqua, Williams Creek, Canton Creek, Fairview, Cougar Bluff, and Hardesty Mountain across the Umpqua and Siuslaw National Forests, are places where people can still find quiet, clean forest. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put all of that at risk. The agency's own record undermines its wildfire rationale. The draft environmental impact statement 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." Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Those acres are quieter and safer from ignition precisely because roads do not cross them. The places I named, stretching from the Mt. Hood National Forest to the Umpqua, offer that protection now. I ask that the agency explain how this proposal departs from its own prior findings and reconcile 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. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record acknowledges 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." Against that minimal upside, the agency's cost-benefit analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. Across the Pacific Northwest, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and the forests I named drain into those same systems. The agency cannot establish a net benefit, yet proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile those numbers on the record before it proceeds. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace the national rule. But the agency's own record shows what happened the last time that argument was made. A federal appellate court reversed and remanded the district court's decision that had blocked the 2001 rule, holding: "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." That court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and found it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency has not explained how its current proposal avoids the deficiencies identified the last time it tried to replace the national rule with a patchwork of local decisions. The agency must address that question directly. The agency also argues the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority, a position the courts have already examined and rejected. Beyond the appellate holding above, the agency's record reflects its own prior dissatisfaction with a nationwide approach, a dissatisfaction courts declined to translate into a legal defect. The agency has not identified what has changed in the underlying law. I ask that the agency state plainly, on the record, what legal authority it now believes limits the 2001 rule, and how that position accounts for binding appellate precedent upholding it. These forests are not abstractions. The mental health of people who live near and visit the Gifford Pinchot, the Mt. Hood, the Umpqua, and the Siuslaw depends in part on the continued existence of places that roads have not yet reached. The agency must not rescind the 2001 rule. Sincerely, M.D. Portland, OR