Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-584408

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 19/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fails to reconcile its own DEIS findings on fire density and road maintenance deficits, ignores the legal precedent from the Tenth Circuit regarding statutory authority, and defers critical Tribal consultation records and impact statements until after the comment period, thereby denying the public and Tribal nations the opportunity to respond to the full 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, Alternative, 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
- “Erosion, sedimentation, and heat: bad for drinking water”
- “Bridge Creek... supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Roads impair watersheds”
Wildlife Habitat
- “lower Deschutes holds one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout”
- “Big Marsh supports the largest monitored population of federally threatened Oregon spotted frog”
- “species protections of this scale should be subordinated to a timber volume”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “As a Karuk citizen, I read the Tribal consultation record with attention”
- “majority sentiment among consulted Tribal governments is opposition”
- “Deferring that statement until after the comment period denies the public and Tribal nations opportunity to respond”
- “threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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 than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “I have been evacuated twice for wildfires”
- “Roads and the humans who drive on them contribute to these blazes”

What it names

National Forests: Deschutes National Forest
Roadless areas: South Paulina
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 gapEvidenceRequestAlternative

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Deschutes National Forest is steps outside of my neighborhood. I walk in it every day. I have been evacuated twice for wildfires. That history shapes how I read this proposal, and what I need the agency to address. I work as a grant writer for a forest nonprofit, so I am familiar with the road maintenance backlog. The $6.9 billion deficit is astounding. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would exacerbate that problem. Our road system carries a large number of undersized culverts with no budget allocated toward upsizing them. Adding new roads into the North and South Paulina roadless areas, which cover 28,744 acres inside the Deschutes, would deepen a liability the agency has demonstrated it cannot fund. The agency should explain on the record how expanding a road network carrying a deficit this large constitutes responsible stewardship, and address why the proposal does not require the existing system to be brought into defensible condition. The agency's record addresses ignition. Its DEIS 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." I was six the first time I was evacuated for a wildfire. Roads and the humans who drive on them contribute to these blazes. The agency's proposal justifies rescission on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet its own DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency reconcile those positions in writing and explain why the proposal departs from its own findings. Erosion, sedimentation, and heat: bad for drinking water and the fishing tours that my town relies upon. Roads impair watersheds. Bridge Creek, running through old-growth forest on the Deschutes, supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water. The lower Deschutes holds one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout. Big Marsh supports the largest monitored population of federally threatened Oregon spotted frog. Across the Pacific Northwest, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency's own analyses support decommissioning roads, not adding them. I ask the agency to explain what analysis it relied upon to conclude that watershed and species protections of this scale should be subordinated to a timber volume the agency describes as "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 economic record deserves scrutiny: the agency'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 and a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. A range that wide cannot establish a net benefit, and the agency must say so plainly. As a Karuk citizen, I read the Tribal consultation record with attention. The agency states that "The Forest Service received 64 requests for Tribal consultation; 29 consultations have been held and 5 more scheduled, with the published Tribal Summary Impact Statement records that the majority sentiment among consulted Tribal governments is opposition, viewing the rescission as a threat to inherent rights, Tribal sovereignty, cultural survival and the ecological health of ancestral homelands; the final Tribal Impact Summary Statement is deferred to the final rule." Deferring that statement until after the comment period denies the public and Tribal nations opportunity to respond. Tribal governments proposed alternatives, including a strengthened roadless rule and a Traditional Homelands Conservation Rule. None was analyzed. The agency must complete all 64 consultations and publish the Tribal Impact Summary Statement before any final rule is issued. The proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. A federal court reviewed that question and concluded otherwise. In that case, 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 holding and explain the legal basis for a contrary position. This ill-conceived rule change will not benefit anyone except timber corporations, at great cost to the economies and communities nearby. I urge the agency to withdraw the proposal. Sincerely, Emily Woodworth Sisters, OR