Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-346162

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific challenge to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, documenting that the agency's own draft EIS data contradicts the wildfire rationale by showing higher fire density on roaded lands, that the economic analysis fails to establish a net benefit against a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and that the Tenth Circuit has already upheld the rule's statutory authority under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “greatest sources of my community's drinking water”
- “watershed my community drinks from”
- “My family drinks from this watershed”
Wildlife Habitat
- “grizzly bear habitat”
- “Yellowstone cutthroat trout, wolverine, elk, bighorn sheep, and grizzly bears live”
- “scenery and wildlife are abundant”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “record destroys the wildfire rationale”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Opening them to roads does not reduce fire risk”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike, camp, and canoe on lakes”
- “My family paddles the many lakes and rivers”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”

What it names

National Forests: Gallatin National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

Attachments

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

Own letter
Supporting material
Own letter

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The lakes and rivers of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are the greatest sources of my community's drinking water. They must be protected. I live near the border of Yellowstone National Park, and I hike, camp, and canoe on lakes in the Custer Gallatin National Forest and the Beartooth Mountains. My family paddles the many lakes and rivers of the ecosystem. Some of my most beautiful photographs come from roadless areas, where the scenery and wildlife are abundant and there are very few disturbances, such as roads with motorized vehicles. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects the places I depend on, and I oppose its rescission without reservation. The agency's own record destroys the wildfire rationale for this proposal. 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 Custer holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 144,945 acres, and the Gallatin holds 14 areas totaling 703,144 acres. These are not abstract numbers. They form the northeastern wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, grizzly bear habitat and the watershed my community drinks from. Opening them to roads does not reduce fire risk. The agency's own data says the opposite. I ask that the agency explain in this proceeding why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not hold up either. The agency's record acknowledges: "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 a fraction of a percent of national timber and energy output, the agency proposes to open places where Yellowstone cutthroat trout, wolverine, elk, bighorn sheep, and grizzly bears live, places that photographers like me seek out precisely because they are quiet. The Gallatin Range fight has already been one of the most contentious roadless battles in the country, pitting backcountry hunters and wildlife advocates against timber interests in grizzly habitat. The agency must reconcile this proposal with its own economic analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency has already tried replacing the national rule with a state-by-state approach, and a federal court rejected it. The record quotes the agency's own prior dissatisfaction with the rule's "inflexible 'one-size-fits-all' nationwide rulemaking approach." 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. What the agency's record does not square is its own finding that local, incremental decision-making can erode nationally significant roadless values in exactly the way the Ninth Circuit found deficient the last time this substitution was attempted. How does this proposal avoid those same deficiencies? That question deserves a direct answer in this docket. The agency also argues the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority. The courts that examined that question disagreed. The Tenth Circuit held: "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 agency must address the Tenth Circuit's conclusion that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and it must state plainly in this proceeding the basis for any position to the contrary. I paddle these waters. I photograph these forests. My family drinks from this watershed. The rule stands between the Custer Gallatin and the kind of incremental, irreversible loss that no future administration can undo. Rescind it, and the damage is permanent.