Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602726

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's own DEIS, Tribal Summary Impact Statement, and Cost Benefit Analysis contain data contradicting the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule regarding wildlife impacts, wildfire risks, and net economic benefits, and cites a Tenth Circuit holding affirming the rule's statutory authority.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “deer I watch from my window depend on roadless land”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “recovery of deer populations in Alaska by preserving old-growth winter shelter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
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”
- “ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total U.S. production”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog”
- “economic analysis that cannot establish a net benefit”
Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Opening roadless land to extraction when the agency's own data say the costs outweigh the gains is not wise”

What it names

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 gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, because the record the agency assembled does not support this action. I live in Oregon. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and 1,522 municipal water intakes across the Pacific Northwest region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Opening roadless land to extraction when the agency's own data say the costs outweigh the gains is not wise. The deer I watch from my window depend on roadless land more than many people realize. The agency's own DEIS cites research finding that roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed. The Tribal Summary Impact Statement in the agency's own record credits the rule's protection with the recovery of deer populations in Alaska by preserving old-growth winter shelter. Rescinding the rule puts exactly that kind of roadless security at risk for deer across the country. I ask the agency to explain in this proceeding how it weighs documented harms to deer against any claimed benefit of the rescission. The birds I enjoy watching and listening are also 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. Roads do not have to carry vehicles to harm birds; their noise alone does measurable damage. I want the agency to explain how it reconciles those findings with a proposal to expand the road system into areas currently protected. On wildfire, the agency's 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 roadless lands." The proposal nevertheless cites wildfire and fuels management as justification for rescission. Those two positions cannot both be right. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the protected roadless areas. The economic case for this rescission is weak. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total U.S. 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." Numbers support me in saying the public wants wild habitats preserved, and those numbers show the extraction gains are trivial. 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, with a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million, and the Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile the proposal with an economic analysis that cannot establish a net benefit. Explain how adding to a road system already in deficit serves the public interest. The agency also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. Its own prior record states: "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 Ninth Circuit has already reviewed what happened when the agency substituted local decision-making for the national rule and found it deficient. The agency needs to explain in this proceeding how this proposal avoids repeating those same deficiencies. Finally, the agency claims the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit already examined 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 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must address that holding directly and state on what basis it now takes a contrary position. Public land should be managed for citizens, not for benefit of cattle ranchers, data center managers, or oil and gas drillers. Our lives are greatly enriched sharing this planet with our wild friends, and the record before this agency does not justify trading that away for gains its own analysis cannot confirm. Sincerely, Jean M. Winslow Newport, OR