Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-576951

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildlife habitat loss, wildfire risk, and economic net benefits, and that the small-business regulatory flexibility analysis uses a flawed national averaging methodology that fails to assess localized impacts on specific operators in the Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “elk survival rates rose during a road closure”
    • “bird richness declines with road presence”
    • “contiguous habitat like the Deschutes and Paulina Roadless Areas”
    • “unroaded land with cover and forage constitutes ideal summer elk habitat”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “chance to unwind and slow down”
    • “wildlife-dependent recreation intact”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “raw nature of the landscape and trails is what draws me back”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
    • “DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
    • “reconcile the rescission with those findings”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
    • “small-business certification... spreading estimated losses across every small firm”

What it names

National Forests
Ochoco National Forest
Roadless areas
Lookout Mountain

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 Lookout Mountain area of the Ochoco National Forest is the kind of place that stays with you. I have been going there for years, riding the Lookout Mountain trails, searching for elk, raptors, and songbirds in contiguous habitat like the Deschutes and Paulina Roadless Areas, and finding in all of it what I can rarely find elsewhere: a chance to unwind and slow down. The raw nature of the landscape and trails is what draws me back. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because the roadless character of these places is not incidental to what they offer. It is the whole point. The elk I look for in the Deschutes and Paulina Roadless Areas depend on conditions that roads destroy. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed, and that unroaded land with cover and forage constitutes ideal summer elk habitat. The bird richness I seek in this contiguous habitat is equally at stake. 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. These are not projections about distant forests. They describe the conditions I go to the Ochoco and Deschutes to find. I ask the agency to explain what analysis supports the conclusion that opening these areas to road construction would leave wildlife-dependent recreation intact. The agency defends this rescission partly on wildfire grounds, but its 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." DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must reconcile the rescission with those findings and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior analysis of fire occurrence and fuel treatment in the areas the rule currently protects. On economics: the agency's own 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." Its 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 spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system. The agency has not shown how expanding that system, at marginal commodity gains its own numbers cannot confirm as net positive, serves the public interest. It should answer that question plainly before moving forward. Finally, the small-business certification in the supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading estimated losses across every small firm in the affected sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators actually holding permits in the affected areas. The DEIS names those operators as affected, and the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books their recreation losses at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. A methodology that dissolves real, localized harm into a national average does not satisfy the purpose of the certification requirement. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a genuine assessment of the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, including those on the Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests where I ride and watch for wildlife. The Deschutes holds 11 inventoried roadless areas totaling 136,446 acres. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. These are not abstract figures. They represent the contiguous, unroaded habitat that makes the wildlife and the experience I described possible. The agency should protect them. Sincerely, Mike Schmeiske Bend, 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