Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-607433

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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

  • Governance Policy Process
    • “failed to hold a single public meeting for the current proposed rescission”
    • “venue for community members to be able to express their own expertise”
    • “testimony would be submitted to this public process”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “in support of retaining the Roadless Rule”
    • “co-hosted by organizations including Sierra Club, Cascade Conservancy”
    • “Save our Wild Salmon”

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Own letter

The comment

The attached file is the transcript from the Roadless Rule Town Hall held in Portland on April 8th, 2026, from 6 to 8 pm. This event took place at Ecotrust Building, at 721 NW 9th Ave, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97209. This meeting was co-hosted by organizations including Sierra Club, Cascade Conservancy, Save our Wild Salmon, BARK, Oregon Wild, and Environment Oregon. During the development of the Roadless Rule in 2001, the Forest Service put together a commendable effort to hold public meetings and incorporate that feedback into the makeup of the rule itself. In contrast to this, the Forest Service has failed to hold a single public meeting for the current proposed rescission of the rule. This Town Hall was organized as a venue for community members to be able to express their own expertise and opinions in support of retaining the Roadless Rule, with the acknowledgement that their testimony would be submitted to this public process when the comment period opened. This transcript contains 24 unique and substantive comments from individual speakers, including tribal representatives, Federal Representative Andrea Salinas, and the representatives of a number of different organizations. Thank you for considering their words carefully. Individual comments from: 1. Damon Motz-Storey, Sierra Club Oregon Chapter Director 2. Rep. Andrea Salinas, Oregon's 6th District (guest speaker) 3. Justin Boyles, Environment Oregon 4. Steve Kruger, Trailkeepers of Oregon 5. Regna Merritt, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility 6. Jordan Latter, Bark 7. Abby Dalke, Save Our Wild Salmon 8. Casey Clapp, arborist (podcast: Completely Arbortrary) 9. Jared Kennedy, Greater Hells Canyon Council 10. Will Pattiz, More Than Just Parks 11. Kristin Faulkner, individual 12. David Rollins, firefighter/conservationist 13. Felice Kelly, 350PDX Forest Defense Team 14. Tommy Hough, WaterWatch of Oregon 15. Grace Ng Dung, artist/illustrator 16. Dan Faulkner, individual 17. Alder McDonald, individual 18. Sierra Cromwell, individual 19. Kathleen Worley, individual 20. Sharon Selvaqqiu, Mazamas Mountaineering Club 21. Trygve Steen, individual 22. Ellen Mendoza, Great Old Broads for Wilderness 23. Guy Berliner, individual

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