Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-584887

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

In short: The comment documents that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule conflicts with the agency's own prior findings on wildfire risk and legal precedents regarding statutory authority, while failing to address the specific ecological and water quality values of the Deschutes National Forest roadless areas.

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

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 the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “the courts rejected it”
- “Tenth Circuit held... REVERSE the district court's order”
- “the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Bridge Creek running through old-growth forest there supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water”
- “Roading those acres does not protect those values”
Wildlife Habitat
- “The Deschutes roadless areas support bull trout, Oregon spotted frog, northern spotted owl”
- “white-headed woodpecker, redband trout, and elk”
- “keeping those acres intact for the next generation”

What it names

National Forests: Deschutes National Forest
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 knowledgeAnalytical gapRequestAlternative

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My family and friends ride in the Deschutes National Forest, and we want to make sure our kids can ride out there too. The Deschutes holds 136,446 acres across 11 inventoried roadless areas, and that is exactly what this comment is about: keeping those acres intact for the next generation. We have roads everywhere else in the United States. Just keep some sections unroaded. The agency's own findings on wildfire make the rescission's logic hard to follow. 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." The Deschutes is in my backyard. I am not speculating about fire risk; I am living next to it. The agency should explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency has also been down the path of replacing a national rule with state-by-state approaches before, and the courts rejected it. The record shows: "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 agency should address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency tried this. On the question of statutory authority, the courts already reviewed it and ruled. 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 should address that court's holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and explain on the record any basis for a contrary reading. The rule as written already permits the exceptions the agency cites as justification for rescission. The text itself provides: "It 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)." The Deschutes roadless areas support bull trout, Oregon spotted frog, northern spotted owl, white-headed woodpecker, redband trout, and elk, and Bridge Creek running through old-growth forest there supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water. Roading those acres does not protect those values; the existing exceptions already give the agency room to act where health and safety genuinely require it. The agency should identify on the record which specific permitting burdens are not already addressed by the rule's existing exceptions, and quantify them, rather than rescinding a rule that has worked. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. These are the last unroaded sections of the national forests, and we want to keep them that way for our kids. I ask that the agency respond to each of the points raised here before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Flynn Sizemore Bend, Oregon