Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-444167

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 17, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from DEIS Tables 21 and 35 regarding fire density and water intakes, cites Tenth Circuit precedent upholding the 2001 rule under the Organic Act and MUSY Act, and requests the agency to reconcile the proposed rescission with its own cost-benefit analysis, road maintenance backlog, and prior judicial findings.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “municipal water for Lincoln City”
- “spill sediment, fuel and pesticides into source water”
- “increased treatment costs to municipalities”
- “water quality that roadless protection provides”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “fire justification offered for this rescission is flatly contradicted”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “rejected by the Ninth Circuit”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “consistent with the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act”
- “legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
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”
- “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog”
- “spend tax dollars building more”

What it names

National Forests: Siuslaw National Forest
Roadless areas: Drift 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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Drift Creek Falls trail, which my friends, family and I hike every year on my birthday, draws its water from a forest that also supplies most of the municipal water for Lincoln City, a city of approximately 10,000 people where we also eat, drink and recreate. That connection is why I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, with particular concern for the Drift Creek roadless area, 6,333 acres within the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon. The water question alone should stop this proposal. The agency itself has acknowledged that building and maintaining roads and conducting logging operations on logging access roads spill sediment, fuel and pesticides into source water, causing municipalities to spend more on treatment to make that water drinkable. Across the Pacific Northwest region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, according to DEIS Table 35. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Opening those landscapes to new road construction would impose real costs on real communities downstream. I ask the agency to explain specifically how the rescission accounts for increased treatment costs to municipalities that currently depend on the water quality that roadless protection provides. The fire justification offered for this rescission is flatly 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." I ask the agency to explain why the proposal departs from that finding and to 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 those marginal extraction figures, 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 ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. And it cannot be squared with the practical reality that the Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog against a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. If the agency does not have the budget to maintain the roads it already has, why would we spend tax dollars building more? The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own analysis and explain on the record how expanding a road system already collapsing under deferred maintenance serves the public interest. The proposed shift toward a state-by-state framework was attempted before and rejected by the Ninth Circuit on the ground that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency's own prior rulemaking record reflects this concern, though the current proposal does not genuinely grapple with it. How does this rescission avoid the same deficiencies the court identified the last time the agency abandoned the national rule in favor of state petitions? Finally, the agency's claim that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority ignores what courts have already decided. The Tenth Circuit held, reversing the district court below: "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 rule consistent with the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and held it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must identify the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding, in plain terms, before proceeding further. Sincerely, Barbara B. Davis Waldport, Oregon