Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608257

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own draft EIS data on wildfire ignition rates and its Cost Benefit Analysis regarding net economic benefits, and that the agency failed to provide a mechanism to weigh the reliance interests it solicited in the Federal Register notice.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

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.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Topics

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “feeds the watershed that supplies drinking water directly to Salem”
    • “protect the fresh water they provide our community”
    • “dependence on the watershed protections the current rule helps secure”
  • 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”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue... with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “expand a road system that already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “Under established administrative law, an agency changing course must identify and assess the reliance interests”
    • “built no mechanism to weigh them”
    • “The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments”

What it names

National Forests
Willamette National Forest

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Willamette National Forest is where I go to escape, explore, and enjoy the outdoors. That forest, and the roadless areas within it, also feeds the watershed that supplies drinking water directly to Salem, Oregon's capital city, through the Santiam River. Protecting those roadless areas is not an abstract conservation preference. It is imperative that we protect them in order to protect the fresh water they provide our community. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and ask the agency to respond to the specific points below. The agency's own analysis of fire risk undermines the central rationale offered for this proposal. 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 proposal nonetheless justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and it must 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 economic case for rescission is equally unsupported by the agency's own numbers. The 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." Against that, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service while booking recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The agency is also proposing to expand a road system that already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify that expansion? The agency must reconcile those figures before this proposal can move forward. Finally, the agency has invited comment on reliance interests and then built no mechanism to weigh them. The proposal solicits "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. Under established administrative law, an agency changing course must identify and assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. My use of the Willamette National Forest, and my community's dependence on the watershed protections the current rule helps secure, represent exactly such an interest. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Stacey Kline Salem, Oregon

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