Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-444811

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

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule contradicts its own data regarding fire density, fails to demonstrate a net public benefit in its economic analysis, ignores prior judicial findings on state-by-state approaches, and does not adequately address Tenth Circuit precedent on statutory authority.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Opening these landscapes to roads in the name of fuels management contradicts the agency's own data”
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”
- “road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit nonetheless reinstated the national rule”
- “Tenth Circuit resolved this question directly”
- “2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Degrading the watersheds that supply them does not pencil out”

What it names

National Forests: Deschutes National Forest Ochoco National Forest
Roadless areas: Green MountainLookout MountainNorth PaulinaRock CreekSilver CreekSouth Paulina
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hiking and paddling through the forests of central Oregon, watching for bald eagles and foxes, has shaped how I think about what public land is for. I hike at Lookout Mountain in the Ochoco National Forest, which covers 14,115 acres of some of my favorite terrain in the state. I hike and backpack at Rock Creek, another 11,396 acres in the Ochoco. I love hiking at South Paulina and North Paulina in the Deschutes National Forest, 9,074 and 19,670 acres respectively, and I regard Silver Creek and Green Mountain in the Ochoco as areas we simply cannot lose. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the agency to respond to the points below. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale for this proposal. 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." The forests where I hike, including the Ochoco and the Deschutes, contain inventoried roadless areas whose lower fire density is consistent with that finding. The Deschutes alone holds 11 inventoried roadless areas totaling 136,446 acres, and Oregon statewide holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Opening these landscapes to roads in the name of fuels management contradicts the agency's own data. I ask the agency to explain why this proposal departs from its prior findings on fire occurrence 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 equally unsupported by the record. The agency's own analysis states: "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." Balanced against that marginal supply contribution, 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 and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million, a range so wide it cannot establish a net benefit. The road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Across the Pacific Northwest region alone, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and the Deschutes is among them. I paddle and backpack in these forests because they are intact. Degrading the watersheds that supply them does not pencil out. The agency must reconcile this proposal with an economic record that fails to demonstrate net public benefit before adding further infrastructure liability. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule, but the agency has tried that before and a federal court rejected it. The record reflects that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit nonetheless reinstated the national rule, having found that local and incremental decision-making could erode nationally significant roadless values in ways a patchwork approach could not prevent. This proposal follows the same structural logic the circuit already examined. The agency must address how this rescission avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time it tried replacing the national rule with a state-by-state framework. Finally, the statutory authority argument does not hold. The Tenth Circuit resolved this question directly: "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 held that the 2001 rule fell within authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The proposal does not adequately engage that holding. The agency must explain the legal basis for any position contrary to the Tenth Circuit's reasoning, and it must do so with specificity sufficient for meaningful public review. Silver Creek is crucial to protect. Green Mountain is wilderness we cannot afford to lose. I ask this agency to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Sydney Livingston