Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-524407

Opposes rescissionPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “waste of taxpayers money”
    • “cost of road building was much higher”
    • “made the sales uneconomical”
    • “timber in these areas was of lower quality and quantity”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative”
    • “leave current roadless protections in place”
    • “witnessed the steady harvesting of the old growth forest”

What it names

National Forests
Umpqua National Forest

The comment

I was a USFS Timber Sale planner I worked as a Timber Sale Planner for the USFS on the Umpqua NF for 20 years starting in 1980. The Umpqua NF is in western Oregon where timber sale production was the highest in the country. Timber harvesting started in the 1950s. As a timber sale planner I witnessed the steady harvesting of the old growth forest and saw that the reason that most areas were not roaded and had timber sales is because the timber in these areas was of lower quality and quantity and the cost of road building was much higher and made the sales uneconomical. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place. I think it is a waste of taxpayers money to propose that these areas are now economically feasibility for road building and logging Sincerely, Steve Gadd Sisters, OR

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless