Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-314080

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildlife sensitivity, fire risk on roaded lands, and economic net benefits, and that the regulatory flexibility analysis fails to properly assess impacts on specific small entities 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

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
- “lynx and wolverine still have room”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “species whose persistence depends on exactly the undisturbed conditions”
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 reportedly shows far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain why it is departing from its own prior findings on fire occurrence”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue... set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “what draws me there is exactly what roads erode: the least management, the quietest ground”
- “I photograph wildlife in the areas that have been left alone”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties”

What it names

National Forests: Bridger-Teton National Forest
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Bridger-Teton National Forest is where I go, and what draws me there is exactly what roads erode: the least management, the quietest ground, the places where lynx and wolverine still have room. I photograph wildlife in the areas that have been left alone. That is not a preference I can satisfy somewhere else. It is a reason this proposal, if it goes forward, takes something from me that cannot be replaced by a unit of timber volume or a fraction of national oil output. On wildlife, the agency's own record makes the case I would make. The DEIS wildlife analysis finds that wide-ranging mammals like the grizzly bear "have suffered habitat loss and the extirpation or fragmentation of their populations." Wolverine avoid roads used by winter machines. The same analysis cites findings that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter. I go to the Bridger-Teton looking for lynx and wolverine, two species whose persistence depends on exactly the undisturbed conditions that the current rule protects. The agency has not explained how expanding the road network into those areas is consistent with its own documented findings about what roads do to the animals it is legally obligated to consider. I ask the agency to explain, in this docket, how the proposal accounts for these documented effects on the species its own DEIS identifies as road-sensitive. On fire, the agency's justification for rescission rests in part on fuels management, but its own prior findings say the opposite of what that justification requires. 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 sentence belongs to the agency, not to its critics. DEIS Table 21 reportedly shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency must reconcile the proposal with those numbers and explain why it is departing from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas. The economic rationale does not hold together either. The agency's own record states: "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 that baseline, the Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. A range that wide, spanning positive and negative territory, cannot establish that this action produces a net benefit. It cannot do so while the road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does adding roads the agency cannot afford to maintain serve the public interest the proposal claims to advance? The agency should answer that question in this record. On permitting burden, the rule as written already allows what the proposal claims to unlock. The agency's own text acknowledges that the rule "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Exceptions exist for public health and safety, for existing mineral leases, and for community wildfire protection. The proposal has not identified which specific operational needs fall outside those exceptions or quantified the burden that the existing rule actually imposes, as opposed to the burden imagined for it. The agency should do that work before proceeding. Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification that this proposal has no significant impact on small entities is not credible on the face of the agency's own analysis. The DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties. The Cost Benefit Analysis books a minimum of $6.1 million a year in lost recreation benefit. Spreading that loss across the national average firm in order to reach a no-impact conclusion is not the analysis the law requires. The entities actually holding permits in the potentially affected roadless areas are the ones whose livelihoods are at stake, and the agency should assess them directly rather than averaging them into invisibility. The certification should be withdrawn and redone with the firms that will actually feel the consequence. Sincerely, Jonathan Ratner Cora WY