Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-591967

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

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS data (Table 21) contradicts the rescission's wildfire rationale by showing higher ignition densities on roaded lands, identifies an internal inconsistency in the small-business impact certification, and asserts a specific reliance interest in the protection of the Smith Umpqua, Hardesty Mountain, and Fairview 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

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

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “building roads into our forests will increase the risk of human-caused wildfires”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “places I visit on a regular basis to camp, hike, and bird watch”
    • “books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
    • “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “cut down and destroy more of our forests and habitat for wildlife”
    • “attack on our forests”
    • “Leave our forests alone”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “Under the legal standards governing agency change of course, that kind of reliance must be identified and weighed”
    • “The agency should withdraw the small-business certification”
    • “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS”

What it names

National Forests
Siuslaw National ForestUmpqua National Forest
Roadless areas
Hardesty MountainSmith Umpqua

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

I am appalled at the Trump administration's attack on our forests and I am writing to oppose the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Oregon and the forests around Smith Umpqua, Hardesty Mountain, and Fairview are the places I visit on a regular basis to camp, hike, and bird watch. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would open them, and the 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres across Oregon, to road construction and the harms that follow. Opening up this land would cut down and destroy more of our forests and habitat for wildlife. Not only that, building roads into our forests will increase the risk of human-caused wildfires. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for rescission. The 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." That finding is the agency's, not mine. If roads into areas like Smith Umpqua on the Siuslaw NF and Fairview on the Umpqua NF increase the likelihood of human-caused ignitions, the agency must explain why it now treats road access as a wildfire remedy. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS. That data is specific. The DEIS reports: "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." Hardesty Mountain at 2,597 acres sits alongside Fairview at 7,417 acres and Smith Umpqua at 7,622 acres. These are not abstract numbers. Opening such areas to roads would, by the agency's own data, sharply increase ignition risk within them. The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard before this proposal can proceed. The recreation and small-business analysis is internally inconsistent. The agency's own materials state: "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." That certification is reached by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The Pacific Northwest, which includes Oregon, has 1,522 municipal water intakes in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, meaning the downstream consequences extend well beyond recreation. The agency should withdraw the small-business certification and assess the impact on the specific firms operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Finally, the agency has solicited comment on reliance while declining to weigh any of it. The proposal requests "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is precisely such an interest. The forests at Smith Umpqua, Hardesty Mountain, and Fairview on the Umpqua NF are places whose protection under the current rule I have counted on. Under the legal standards governing agency change of course, that kind of reliance must be identified and weighed, not solicited and then set aside. The agency should identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Leave our forests alone! Sincerely, Stephanie Wolpers Eugene, 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