Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-490520

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record that the agency's own economic analysis fails to demonstrate a net benefit for the rescission, that the proposal threatens 1,522 municipal water intakes and wildlife in the Umpqua and Siuslaw National Forests, and that the agency has not addressed the legal precedents from the Tenth and Ninth Circuits regarding the validity of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “water I drink every day begins in these affected watersheds”
- “do not want water treatment costs to rise”
- “direct threat to the watershed quality that municipal intakes and aquatic species depend on”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes lie in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Wildlife Habitat
- “wildlife in the Hardesty Mountain wilderness area currently has room to live as it should”
- “wildlife that depend on these watersheds for their lives matter too”
- “roads are precisely the threat the rule was designed to hold back”
- “aquatic species depend on”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “agency's own numbers undercut the economic rationale”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit has already spoken”
- “held the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit found that prior state-by-state substitution inadequate”
- “administrative burden argument does not survive contact with the rule's own text”

What it names

National Forests: Umpqua National Forest
Roadless areas: Hardesty MountainSmith UmpquaWilliams Creek
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The wildlife in the Hardesty Mountain wilderness area currently has room to live as it should. That is not a small thing to me, and it is exactly what rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put at risk. I hike in Hardesty Mountain, a 2,597-acre roadless area in the Umpqua National Forest in Oregon, and I am filing this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission under Docket FS-2025-0001. The agency's own numbers undercut the economic rationale for this action before the argument is even made. The record states 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 backdrop, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, 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 whether this action produces any net benefit at all. This is before accounting for a road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with those figures and explain how an action whose own economic analysis cannot demonstrate a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying that debt. The water I drink every day begins in these affected watersheds. I do not want water treatment costs to rise, and I do not want to drink unclean water. The wildlife that depend on these watersheds for their lives matter too, and roads are precisely the threat the rule was designed to hold back. Across the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Oregon and encompasses the Siuslaw and Umpqua national forests where the Smith Umpqua, Hardesty Mountain, and Williams Creek roadless areas sit, 1,522 municipal water intakes lie in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Oregon alone holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. The agency's own analysis found that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Opening these areas to road construction is not an abstraction; it is a direct threat to the watershed quality that municipal intakes and aquatic species depend on. The agency must explain, with specificity, how it proposes to protect those intakes and that wildlife if the national rule is removed. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can substitute for a uniform national rule. The agency has tried that before and the record reflects what followed: "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 found that prior state-by-state substitution inadequate. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies, and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode roadless values that are nationally significant. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit has already spoken: "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 the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state on the record what legal basis it believes supports a contrary reading after that holding. Finally, the administrative burden argument does not survive contact with the rule's own text. The rule "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Exceptions already exist for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection. The agency should identify by name which specific burdens fall outside those existing exceptions and quantify them, because a vague appeal to permitting friction is not a record basis for eliminating protections that took years to establish and that serve the 1,937,741 acres of Oregon roadless land and the communities downstream from them. Our public lands must be managed with environmental integrity and with future generations in mind. The agency has not met that standard here. Sincerely, Lila Moore Eugene, Oregon