Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-390815

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is contradicted by its own prior findings on wildfire risk and cost-benefit analysis, and that the Tenth Circuit has already upheld the 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, 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
    • “see beautiful landscapes and wildlife unharmed by commercial development”
    • “My son takes wildlife photos there, something he can only do because the habitats are intact”
    • “My son's wildlife photos depend on habitats that roads and logging divide and disturb”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “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”
    • “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
  • 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, a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “favorite place to camp and hike”
    • “go there for the calm, the quiet”
    • “the quiet and calming experience my family goes there for would be gone”

What it names

National Forests
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Wallowas are my family's favorite place to camp and hike. My kids and I go there for the calm, the quiet, and the chance to see beautiful landscapes and wildlife unharmed by commercial development. My son takes wildlife photos there, something he can only do because the habitats are intact. That is the specific thing this rescission puts at risk, and I am asking this agency to account for it. The strongest argument against rescission sits in the agency's own record on fire. The proposal justifies opening roadless areas to roads partly on fuels and wildfire management grounds, but the agency's own prior findings state: "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 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest holds 515,000 acres of inventoried roadless land. If roads go in, the fire risk the agency's own data describes goes in with them. I ask the agency to explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and to 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 economics do not hold up either. The agency's record states plainly 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, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis 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, a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Oregon alone holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency cannot establish a net benefit in its own analysis, yet it proposes to expand the very infrastructure it cannot afford to maintain. The agency must reconcile those numbers before it moves forward. The agency has also argued that state-by-state approaches can substitute for one national rule. I will not reproduce a quote on this point because I cannot confirm it appears exactly as supplied, but the substance of the agency's own prior record shows that the USDA previously expressed dissatisfaction with the rule's nationwide approach and favored local decision-making instead. That path was tried, and it drew sustained legal challenge precisely because piecemeal, local decisions erode nationally significant roadless values in ways no single state proceeding can correct. The agency should explain on the record how this proposal avoids the deficiencies courts identified the last time it replaced the national rule with a state-by-state framework. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit already answered that question. Its holding was: "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 court found the rule was authorized under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency should state clearly, on the record, what legal basis it relies on to take a contrary position now. If new roads went through the Wallowas, the quiet and calming experience my family goes there for would be gone. My son's wildlife photos depend on habitats that roads and logging divide and disturb. The agency has held more than 600 public meetings and taken in 1.6 million comments to build the rule it now proposes to erase, and it has held none to undo it. That asymmetry alone demands a full answer. I oppose this rescission. Sincerely, Pullman, WA Resident and Mom

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