Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-482449

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 25, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts the agency's own findings on wildfire risk, economic net benefits, and legal authority, specifically citing DEIS Table 21 and Tenth Circuit precedent to demonstrate deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding Oregon's roadless areas.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “access to this land that I had, to hike in remote places”
- “find peace and serenity and quiet, not roads and super malls”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “I go to these places for peace and serenity”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “The wildfire rationale offered for this rescission contradicts the agency's own findings”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “opening these roadless areas to road construction does not protect them from fire”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Water Quality Quantity
- “I want clean water in the lakes and rivers where I paddle board to last for generations”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “how expanding an already underfunded road system serves those water quality interests”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “the Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient”
- “The Tenth Circuit held... we REVERSE the district court's order”
- “That court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “The agency owes a clear explanation of the legal basis for any position to the contrary”

What it names

National Forests: Siuslaw National Forest
Roadless areas: Drift CreekHebo 1aMoose Lake
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 Oregon is home to me. I grew up here, and I want my kids and grandkids to have the access to this land that I had, to hike in remote places, to witness true nature, to find peace and serenity and quiet, not roads and super malls. That is what is at stake in Docket FS-2025-0001, and I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The wildfire rationale offered for this rescission contradicts the agency's own findings, and that contradiction matters to me directly. Wildfires in Oregon have destroyed so many lives and homes, not just for humans but for animals too, and I have watched what bad forest management has created across this state. The areas I care about, Drift Creek and Hebo 1a in the Siuslaw National Forest, Elkhorn and Moose Lake and the others in the Willamette, exist in a region I call home. The agency's own 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." If that finding is accurate, then opening these roadless areas to road construction does not protect them from fire; it exposes them to one of fire's most significant causes. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from that prior finding, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the record indicates shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is equally weak on the agency's own numbers. The record reflects 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 gains, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from this action with its own numbers. I want clean water in the lakes and rivers where I paddle board to last for generations, and the record notes that across the Pacific Northwest, which includes Oregon, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency must explain on the record how expanding an already underfunded road system serves those water quality interests. The argument that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a national rule is one the agency has made before, and it has not fared well. The agency's prior public record reflects its expressed dissatisfaction with what it called the Roadless Rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach," and yet the last time it acted on that dissatisfaction by replacing the national rule with a state-by-state process, the Ninth Circuit found that approach legally deficient. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Piecemeal local decision-making, as the agency's own prior analysis acknowledged, can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values in ways a national rule prevents. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids repeating the same deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified. Finally, the agency's suggestion that the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority runs directly against a court holding already in the record. 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." That court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and concluded it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency owes a clear explanation of the legal basis for any position to the contrary. I go to these places for peace and serenity, to witness wildlife, to be in true nature. I want that for my children and their children. This rescission would trade something real and irreplaceable for economic benefits the agency's own analysis cannot confirm. I urge the agency to withdraw it. Sincerely, Mia Baker Oregon 97355