Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-273942

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data from DEIS Table 21 and the agency's own economic analysis to demonstrate that the proposal's wildfire and economic justifications are contradicted by the record, while simultaneously asserting that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would violate obligations to maintain viable wildlife populations and functional corridors in the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “pronghorn that run the longest land migration in North America funnel through it”
    • “Grizzly bear, gray wolf, cutthroat trout, trumpeter swan, and sage grouse all depend on this landscape”
    • “maintain viable wildlife populations and the functional corridors those populations require”
    • “elimination of their migration patterns”
  • 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 this rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
    • “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “projected timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “Wyoming holds 116 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,243,958 acres”

What it names

National Forests
Bridger-Teton National Forest
Roadless areas
Rocky Mountain

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceAlternativeLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My family moved to the Wyoming-Idaho border specifically to live among trees and wildlife, as close to intact nature as possible. We fish, hike, and ride horses in and near the Bridger-Teton National Forest, and we watch, year after year, what these roadless mountains mean to the animals that move through them. This docket is about that land, and I am filing this comment in opposition to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Bridger-Teton holds 19 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,417,499 acres. It is the western wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the largest intact temperate ecosystem in the world. The pronghorn that run the longest land migration in North America funnel through it. The elk herds that winter in the National Elk Refuge depend on summer range in these roadless mountains. Grizzly bear, gray wolf, cutthroat trout, trumpeter swan, and sage grouse all depend on this landscape. We have seen firsthand the importance of this area as a wildlife corridor. Season after season, these animals depend on it to move safely between their winter and summer habitats. Open that corridor to roads and development, and you push those animals into inhabited areas. Conflict follows, and conflict, in our experience, ultimately results in the animals' death or relocation, costly for fish and game and a bad deal for the animals, along with the elimination of their migration patterns. I ask the agency to address on the record how rescinding roadless protections across the Bridger-Teton would be reconciled with its obligations to maintain viable wildlife populations and the functional corridors those populations require. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a rationale for rescission. The agency's own language on this point cuts the other way. 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 agency must explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings, and it must reconcile this rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own analysis concedes: "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 projected timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, the agency's own numbers project recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A cost-benefit analysis that cannot establish a net benefit is not a justification. The agency should explain how it proposes to expand a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on the basis of figures this uncertain. Wyoming holds 116 inventoried roadless areas totaling 3,243,958 acres, and across the Rocky Mountain region, 325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. These are not abstractions. We live here. The land the agency proposes to open is the land we moved to be near, for the precise reason that it remains whole. Rescinding the rule does not balance competing interests. It eliminates protections that took decades to earn, for economic gains the agency's own record cannot confirm, at the cost of ecosystems and migration corridors that cannot be rebuilt. I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal. Sincerely, JoyPaulson Ashton Idaho

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