Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-280665

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted August 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the commenter has 70 years of residence in Wyoming and specific experience in the Shoshone National Forest, and documents their opposition to rescinding the roadless rule based on concerns regarding increased human-caused fires, destruction of backcountry recreation, and disruption of wildlife migration routes.

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

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “detract from the backcountry experience of locals, as well as visitors”
    • “adversely affect the tourist industry”
    • “enjoy recreating in the areas that are being considered for increased development”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “disrupt wildlife migration routes that are just now being discovered”
    • “largest undeveloped area in the city lower 48 states”
    • “pristine areas”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “most of our fires are lightning caused not human caused”
    • “increasing roads and powered vehicle access to these pristine areas increases the probability of human causes fires”
    • “building roads in these areas would be expensive and very destructive”

What it names

National Forests
Shoshone National Forest

The comment

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

I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed rescinding of the roadless rule. I have lived in Wyoming for over 70 years and I’ve had the distinct privilege of living close to and having access to the largest undeveloped area in the city lower 48 states. As a young man I worked on a trail crew in the Shoshone national Forest and have been able to enjoy recreating in the areas that are being considered for increased development and road constructionthe justification for this road construction and development is supposed to be increased firefighting capabilities, and to employ strategies such as clear cutting timber from these remote areas. There are several flaws in this logic first is that most of our fires are lightning caused not human caused currently, increasing roads and powered vehicle access to these pristine areas increases the probability of human causes fires building roads in these areas would be expensive and very destructive and expensive to maintain. It would detract from the backcountry experience of locals, as well as visitors, it would adversely affect the tourist industry that provide safe access to these pristine areas by experienced guides and outfitters. It would disrupt wildlife migration routes that are just now being discovered. There is of course, appropriate areas for access with motorized vehicles. There is significant areas currently available in the Beartooth mountains, as well as the Bighorn mountains, which currently has numerous roads open to motorized vehicles. In summary ending the roadless rules as they currently stand is a very bad idea it is contrary to the needs and desires of people such as myself that have lived in this remarkable area for our entire lives. Thanks for the opportunity to provide 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