Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-570259

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS fails to apply cited scientific findings on habitat fragmentation and elk survival to the 40.1 million acres of affected roadless areas, and requests that the agency explain how the proposal avoids legal deficiencies previously identified by the Ninth and Tenth Circuits regarding state-by-state decision-making and 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, 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

Water Quality Quantity
- “supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “direct threat to the water”
Wildlife Habitat
- “one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout”
- “largest monitored population of federally threatened Oregon spotted frog”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “ground the agency has already lost in court”
- “Ninth Circuit found that substituting local decision-making for national protection incrementally eroded values”
- “Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted”
- “legal basis for treating that settled question as open”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “ecological integrity of places I value and use”
- “Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness area”
- “old-growth forest”
- “deserve the full protection of a rule the courts have upheld and the science has validated”

What it names

National Forests: Mt. Hood National Forest
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 gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests I have spent countless hours in, Mt. Hood, Gifford Pinchot, Deschutes, and many others across Oregon and Washington, are worth defending precisely because they remain what they are. The Salmon-Huckleberry Wilderness area, 17,570 acres within Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon, sits inside a broader landscape I know well. Anything that strips these forests of their protections to serve corporate interests is, in my view, a massive mistake, and this proposal is exactly that. The Deschutes holds 11 inventoried roadless areas totaling 136,446 acres. Within that system, Bridge Creek, running through old-growth forest on the Deschutes, supplies roughly 60 percent of Bend's municipal drinking water. The lower Deschutes holds one of only two national strongholds for federally threatened bull trout, and Big Marsh supports possibly the largest monitored population of federally threatened Oregon spotted frog anywhere in its range. Across the Pacific Northwest region, which includes Oregon, 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Oregon itself holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres. Opening these landscapes to road construction is not an abstraction. It is a direct threat to the water, wildlife, and ecological integrity of places I value and use. The proposal attempts to substitute state-by-state approaches for a single national rule, but this is ground the agency has already lost in court. The record 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 found that substituting local decision-making for national protection incrementally eroded values that only the national rule maintained. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The proposal also argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority, but a federal appellate court already answered that question. 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. The Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must explain on the record, with specificity, the legal basis for treating that settled question as open. On wildlife, the agency's own documents contain findings that the proposal never applies. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. That range appears in the document and then disappears. No projection follows for the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to those 40.1 million acres and show its work in the record. The same gap appears for big game. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. Verified species of the Deschutes, a forest I know, include elk alongside bull trout, Oregon spotted frog, northern spotted owl, white-headed woodpecker, and redband trout. Despite acknowledging what roads do to elk, the agency projects no population-level effects anywhere in the document. The agency must project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity before this proposal advances another step. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule should not be rescinded. The forests it protects, including every acre I have walked in Mt. Hood, Gifford Pinchot, and Deschutes National Forests, deserve the full protection of a rule the courts have upheld and the science has validated. Sincerely, David Roy Portland, OR