Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579910

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's justifications for rescinding the Roadless Rule regarding wildfire risk, economic benefit, state flexibility, and legal authority are contradicted by the agency's own record findings, specifically citing DEIS Table 21 ignition data and Cost Benefit Analysis figures, and requests the agency reconcile these contradictions on the record.

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

Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile this proposal with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “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”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “feeds watersheds supplying over a thousand municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit addressed that question and held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress provided”
- “prior attempt to substitute state-by-state rulemaking for the 2001 rule was reviewed by the courts and found wanting”
- “deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last tried this approach”

What it names

National Forests: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Roadless areas: Grande Ronde
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Grande Ronde roadless area in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is the kind of place this proposal would put at risk, and I oppose its rescission without reservation. The agency's stated justification for rescission includes wildfire and fuels management. That justification does not survive contact with the agency's own findings. The 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 the agency now believes road construction inside areas like Grande Ronde reduces fire risk, it needs to say so explicitly and explain what evidence displaces the finding just quoted. I ask that the agency reconcile this proposal 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, and explain on the record why it is departing from its own prior findings. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record acknowledges 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." Oregon alone holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Across the Pacific Northwest region, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Grande Ronde sits within that same regional watershed fabric. The proposal'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 ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that wide cannot establish a net benefit. The agency also has not explained how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog improves the public's position. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with those figures and explain what affirmative finding of net benefit, if any, supports this action. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can adequately replace a single national rule. The agency's own record undercuts that argument directly. It notes that "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." But the prior attempt to substitute state-by-state rulemaking for the 2001 rule was reviewed by the courts and found wanting. The agency's own prior findings acknowledged that local, incremental decision-making can erode nationally significant roadless values precisely because no single state process captures cumulative effects across a national system. The agency should address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency last tried this approach. On the question of statutory authority, the proposal suggests the 2001 rule exceeded what Congress granted. The Tenth Circuit addressed that question and 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 was within the authority Congress provided under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. If the agency holds a contrary legal position, it owes the public a precise explanation of its reasoning and the basis on which it distinguishes or declines to follow that holding. The Grande Ronde is 5,650 acres. It is part of a roadless system that, in Oregon alone, spans nearly two million acres and feeds watersheds supplying over a thousand municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest. The justifications offered for rescission, fire risk reduction, economic benefit, state flexibility, and legal authority, are each contradicted by the agency's own record. The agency should answer each of those contradictions before this docket closes. Sincerely, Karen Orehoski