Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-554187

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk, sediment delivery, and drinking water protection, and documents the commenter's request for specific explanations on how local forest plans will substitute for the protections of the Roadless Rule.

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
- “river otters, Spotted Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers, and other older-forest-dependent species”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
Water Quality Quantity
- “skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas”
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”
- “DEIS Table 21, which documents higher fire density on roaded land”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Fishing national forests across Oregon and the West, preferring un-roaded areas”
- “where I travel to hike and paddle away from roads”
- “where my children fish”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR 294.12
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Fishing national forests across Oregon and the West, preferring un-roaded areas whenever possible, I find the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule difficult to square with what the agency's own record says. These are not abstract landscapes. They are where I travel to hike and paddle away from roads, where my children fish, and where I look for river otters, Spotted Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers, and other older-forest-dependent species. The science on birds alone should give the agency pause before it proceeds. The agency's own DEIS, drawing on Kroeger et al. 2022, McClure et al. 2013, and Ware et al., 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. Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Opening those areas to roads does not merely allow equipment in; it restructures the acoustic and ecological conditions that species like the ones I watch depend on. The agency has quantified this effect in its own literature review and then proposed to move forward without explaining how the species affected by road noise and road-edge conditions will be protected under local forest plans. I ask the agency to explain, specifically, what enforceable habitat provisions in existing forest plans substitute for the bird-richness and noise-avoidance findings documented in its own DEIS. The wildfire rationale offered for rescission is undermined by the agency's own data. 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 is not a finding from a critic of this proposal; it appears in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, alongside DEIS Table 21, which documents higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency owes a clear explanation of why the proposal departs from these findings, and how it reconciles the ignition data in its own record with a justification built substantially on fire and fuels management. The sediment question deserves the same directness. The DEIS acknowledges that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." That figure appears and then the analysis moves on, with no projection of how much sediment would actually reach downstream watercourses if roadless protections are removed. Across the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Oregon, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency should quantify projected sediment delivery to those intakes before finalizing this action. Which leads directly to the drinking water problem. The DEIS states: "Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired." The document asserts that forest plans address public drinking water sources, but it does not identify a single enforceable plan provision that is equivalent to the protections currently found at 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13. That is not an answer; it is a deferral. The agency must identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions carry equivalent force for municipal watersheds. Finally, the state-by-state rationale has been tested before. The DEIS itself reflects that "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 already reviewed the last attempt to replace a national rule with state petitions, and it found that approach wanting. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies, or addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can erode nationally significant roadless values incrementally. That question requires a direct answer in this record. The forests I fish and paddle and watch birds in are not improved by roads. Neither is the record supporting this rescission. Sincerely, Jon Bowers Portland, Oregon