Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-486922

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents the commenter's opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, citing specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding riparian protections for 1,522 water intakes, bird habitat degradation, wildfire risk inconsistencies with DEIS Table 21, negative net economic benefits, and legal authority under the Organic Act and MUSYA.

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
- “salmon in cold clean water”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds”
- “Removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures”
- “clean water reaches salmon populations, bears, and people downstream”
Wildlife Habitat
- “I want to see wildlife”
- “bears, the mammals that depend on intact forest”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the proposal with DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state replacement approach”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”
- “explain its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”

What it names

Roadless areas: Three Sisters
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests I hike and camp across, the Deschutes, Mt. Hood, Siuslaw, Three Sisters, and others throughout Oregon and Washington, matter to me in direct and practical ways. I pay attention to bird calls when I am out there. I want to see wildlife. I want the salmon in cold clean water, the bears, the mammals that depend on intact forest. I am filing this comment to oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to ask the agency to answer several specific points its own record raises. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Removing riparian vegetation can raise stream temperatures beyond what suits cold-water species, and warmer temperatures can reduce egg survival, rearing densities and growth of coho salmon, with the affected area including Essential Fish Habitat and critical habitats managed by NMFS. The forests I hike feed those watersheds. Managing them so clean water reaches salmon populations, bears, and people downstream is not a secondary concern. It is the point. I want the agency to explain what specific protections replace the riparian and watershed buffering that the 2001 rule now provides to those 1,522 intakes and to the cold-water habitat in the Oregon forests named above. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. Paying attention to bird calls, as I do when I am recreating, requires habitat where that is still possible. Opening these areas to roads degrades exactly that. I want the agency to address this finding directly and explain why it does not weigh decisively against rescission. 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." The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. Those two positions cannot both be true without explanation. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings. What sense does it make to build more roads with our money when you can't maintain the ones you have. Its own record 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." The agency's own cost-benefit analysis 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 ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency must explain on the record how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding infrastructure it demonstrably cannot maintain. The record also states: "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 agency has tried this argument before, and the Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state replacement approach it produced. The agency must address how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies and explain its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. On authority: 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 fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA, and did not create de facto wilderness, and must explain in plain terms the legal basis for any contrary position it now asserts. I have commented before in 2025 and no one has answered me. People who use these lands and pay for these lands have a right to decide and be heard. The agency held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. One person does not get to decide. We need to clean up what previous generations have destroyed, not add to it. Sincerely, Heather Cook Aurora, Oregon