Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-355293

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

In short: The comment documents that the agency's Draft Biological Assessments fail to explain the factual basis for departing from the 2001 finding that the Roadless Rule's prohibitions beneficially affect listed species, specifically regarding the loss of alpine tundra habitat for white-tailed ptarmigan in the Williams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent area.

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
- “Alpine Tundra Habitat for White-tailed Ptarmigan”
- “Loss of connectivity between alpine patches through habitat fragmentation”
- “reduce the number of imperiled wildlife species considered "poorly represented"”
- “The habitat and species that could be destroyed”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “In 2001 the Agency Found These Prohibitions Benefited Listed Species”
- “FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)”
- “Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2015)”
- “I request the FEIS directly address the 2001 beneficial-effect finding”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Since I was a kid I've wanted to explore public lands”
- “future generations from being able to explore these spaces”
- “You can't recreate these places once they are gone”

What it names

Roadless areas: Rocky MountainWilliams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent
Law cited: 556 U.S. 502 795 F.3d 956
Works cited: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e0194310.1111/csp2.288

The comment

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

To the USDA Roadless Rule Rulemaking Team: As a conservationist, I track public land outcomes, not just rules. The Roadless Rule's outcomes have been good. Rescinding it ends them. Since I was a kid I’ve wanted to explore public lands which lead me to making a career out of it. I’ve seen how special these places can be for generations of people and wildlife. You can’t recreate these places once they are gone. Losing more public land protections is going to affect not just me, but future generations from being able to explore these spaces. Regarding the Williams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent in the Arapaho & Roosevelt NFs, Colorado: Alpine Tundra Habitat for White-tailed Ptarmigan — The roadless area encompasses Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra at elevations above 11,800 feet, providing the specialized habitat that white-tailed ptarmigan depend on year-round. Colorado populations of this species have declined significantly since the 1970s, and the area's intact alpine ecosystem—with its characteristic low-growing vegetation and minimal disturbance—represents critical refuge as climate warming pushes treeline upward and reduces available tundra. Loss of connectivity between alpine patches through habitat fragmentation would isolate remaining ptarmigan populations and accelerate local extinctions. Roadless areas fill gaps in the existing protected-area network. Adding all Inventoried Roadless Areas to the U.S. protected-area system would reduce the number of imperiled wildlife species considered "poorly represented" in protected areas by 38 species. Roadless areas particularly increase representation of underprotected ecosystem types, including temperate grasslands (+57%) and cool temperate forests (+52%) (Talty et al. 2020; Dietz et al. 2021). — Talty et al., 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Belote, 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.288); Dietz et al., 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943); UNKNOWN, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943) Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Williams Fork Ptarmingan Adjacent, Arapaho & Roosevelt NFs to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. Removing the protections of the Roadless Rule would be heartbreaking. The habitat and species that could be destroyed… we only have so few of these protected spaces left. Why take them away to? In 2001 the Agency Found These Prohibitions Benefited Listed Species; the Rescission Never Engages Its Own Prior Finding Both Draft Biological Assessments open with the same acknowledgment (USFWS BA p. 10; NMFS BA p. 7): "In the promulgation of the 2001 Roadless Rule, the Forest Service found that the Rule's prohibitions on road construction and timber harvest were not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated or critical habitat; were not likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat; and may beneficially affect threatened, endangered, and proposed species and critical habitat… The Services concurred with the determination." The agency thus stands on a concurred-in finding that the prohibitions it now proposes to delete benefit listed species — and the current assessments anticipate widespread adverse effects from deleting them. When an agency reverses course, it "must show that there are good reasons for the new policy," FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009), and where the prior policy rested on factual findings, it may not simply disregard them — the principle applied to this very rule's Tongass history in Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–68 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Neither the DEIS nor the assessments explain what changed in the biology. I request the FEIS directly address the 2001 beneficial-effect finding and state the factual basis for departing from it. Keep the protections, please. With thanks, Kyla Nurkowski