The Public Record · Docket FS-2025-0001

Read the comments.

Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.

1 unique comments1 submissions
Position
  • Opposes rescission 100.0%
Answerability
  • A1 strong 1
  • A2 moderate 0
  • A3 weak 0
  • A0 none 0
Substance /24
Median 18middle half 18–18 · 1 scored
Topics raised
Count
Position
Answerability
Substance /24
Order
1 unique comment citing 402 F.3d 846 · showing 1–1Clear all filters
  1. Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 18/24Owed an answerSep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353902
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
    Dear Ms. Rollins: As an outdoor enthusiast, I write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to note that the Department's statutory obligations under the Multiple Use — Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act require a genuine accounting of the non-commodity values the Rule protects — an accounting that the proposed rescission's record has not provided. I've been lucky to call the PNW home for the last 26 years and the Larch and Gifford Pinchot areas around the Gorge and Mt. Hood mean more to me than can adequately be expressed. I urge to resist the fascistic impulse to acquiesce towards corporations with nothing to offer beyond the carving up of our shared outdoor resources. We live in an area that is still dealing with the impacts of the Celilo Falls destruction. I urge you again to reconsider allowing additional development in an effort to boost the bottom lines of short term corporate interests. Like the falls, once these resources are destroyed we cannot get them back. Regarding the Larch in the Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon: The threat mechanism classified as 4.1 - Roads & railroads (IUCN-CMP 4.1) is actively degrading habitat for Cascade Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae, G3) in the Larch Inventoried Roadless Area, Mt. Hood National Forest, at Serious - slight severity across Restricted (11-30%) scope. The persistence of Cascade Torrent Salamander in Larch under current threat levels presumes continued roadless conditions. Road construction fundamentally alters this baseline, converting the landscape from one that constrains 4.1 - Roads & railroads to one that accelerates it. NEPA requires the agency to take a hard look at the effects of rescission on Cascade Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae) in the Larch IRA. The DEIS fails this standard without site-specific analysis of 4.1 - Roads & railroads at the severity and scope documented by NatureServe. "The expansion of road networks degrades the slope stability and further increases the susceptibility to landslides. Deforestation, infrastructure construction, and mining triggered about 16% of fatal landslides from 2004 to 2016. High overlap exists between landslide susceptibility and areas of endemism for mammals, birds, and amphibians, which means that forests protecting both biodiversity and landslide risks to human society are important conservation targets." — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022 The "No Direct Effect" Framing Is Contradicted by the Assessments' Own "Reasonably Certain" Findings and by the Record The USFWS Biological Assessment frames the action at page 377: "The Forest Service has determined that rescinding the Roadless Rule will have no direct effect on ESA-listed resources because it does not authorize, fund, or carry out future forest management activities." The same document undoes that framing. Page 376: "it is reasonably certain that active forest management and road construction will increase in these areas." Page 24: "it is reasonably certain to occur that there would be an increase in new proposals for uses involving road construction or reconstruction." And the agency's own Tribal Summary Impact Statement records the decisive rejoinder (p. 2): "The Hopi Tribe noted that removing prohibitions, in itself, has an impact." An agency may not deconstruct a programmatic action into harmless paperwork while its own documents find the consequences reasonably certain; reasonably foreseeable effects of removing a prohibition are effects of the action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (programmatic NEPA analysis may not defer all effects); Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005). I request the FEIS analyze the reasonably certain increase its own assessments find, rather than resting on the no-direct-effect formulation. The Rule has protected these forests across multiple administrations. I'm asking this one to do the same. Respectfully, CommentID: RLC-20260909-YP9YL1
    Full analysis of this comment →

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