Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-377563

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data, economic cost-benefit calculations, water quality sediment impacts, and the legal validity of the 2001 rule under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, while requesting the agency reconcile these contradictions and quantify unaddressed administrative burdens.

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, 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

  • 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”
    • “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “Sustainable clean drinking water is foundational for a healthy society”
    • “roadless watersheds are where much of it begins”
    • “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “The Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
    • “the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
    • “must explain the legal basis for any contrary position it now intends to take”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “I go to explore roadless areas, and I love photographing wild and scenic places”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “Recreational and educational uses of public land matter”

What it names

National Forests
Willamette National Forest
Law cited
28 U.S.C. Section 129136 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Willamette National Forest is where I go to explore roadless areas, and I love photographing wild and scenic places like what those forests hold. What draws me there is something the agency's own record implicitly recognizes: once these lands are gone, they do not come back. That truth runs through every concern I have about the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a rationale for opening roadless areas to road construction, but the agency's own findings work against that argument. The record 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic rationale is no stronger. The agency's own record concedes 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 should 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. Our public lands should be managed to ensure our ecosystems remain healthy, because we are part of them. That principle applies directly to drinking water. Sustainable clean drinking water is foundational for a healthy society, and roadless watersheds are where much of it begins. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The agency should address on the record how rescinding protections from these watersheds is consistent with protecting the water quality that millions of people depend on downstream. The proposal also questions whether the 2001 rule fell within the agency's statutory authority. A federal appellate court has already addressed that question directly. The Tenth Circuit held: "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 was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and must explain the legal basis for any contrary position it now intends to take. Finally, the agency cites administrative burden and permitting constraints as justifications, but the rule as written already contains the flexibility the agency claims is missing. By the agency's own description, 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)." The agency should identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by these existing exceptions and quantify those burdens with actual evidence rather than assertion. Recreational and educational uses of public land matter. Healthy ecosystems matter. The places I go to explore and photograph in the Willamette National Forest are part of what this rule protects, and the case for stripping that protection has not been made. Sincerely, Caleb Connolly Eugene, OR

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless