Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-371191

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific evidence that the Medicine Bow–Routt National Forest in southeastern Wyoming contains critical elk habitat and recreation resources protected by the Roadless Rule, and argues that rescinding the rule is financially impractical and does not reduce wildfire risk.

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
    • “escape the noise and recreate on my undisturbed public lands”
    • “allow every outdoor recreation opportunity you can think of”
    • “outstanding hiking, climbing, backcountry skiing, and technical mountaineering”
    • “15 miles of hiking trails on long weekends for backpacking trips”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “The best elk habitat is inside the Roadless boundary”
    • “Moose, elk, and deer are abundant here”
    • “about 58 percent of the current elk range is on land protected by the Roadless Rule”
    • “important wildlife and wildfire management/mitigation activities”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Claims that rescinding the Roadless Rule is required to reduce wildfire risk are unfounded”
    • “The rule already permits fuel‑reduction treatments”
    • “wildfire ignitions occur roughly four times more frequently near roads”
    • “support active, science‑based forest management to improve wildfire resilience”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “The Roadless Rule is also practical financially”
    • “carries roughly $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance”
    • “Adding more roads and long‑term upkeep would only increase those costs”
    • “fixing the financial crisis our country is approaching with $40 trillion of national debt”

What it names

National Forests
Routt National Forest

Attachments

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

  • Supporting material

The comment

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

Hello, I am writing to express my strong opposition to RIN 0596-AD66 and its attempt to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule has protected and conserved the most important chunks of land to me, my family, and many of my friends for 25 years. In a world of constant development and growth, while necessary, it is an absolute breath of fresh air to escape the noise and recreate on my undisturbed public lands with friends and family. This attempt to rescind the roadless rule came as a shock to me since the reasoning appears to be contradictory to the language the Roadless Rule already outlines. Areas protected under the Roadless Rule are not unmanaged. Every area I recreate in that is protected by this rule allows grazing, important wildlife and wildfire management/mitigation activities, and allow every outdoor recreation opportunity you can think of. Also, counter to popular belief, they even have roads, trails, and two-tracks that are open to motorized and nonmotorized travel. How crazy is that?! Claims that rescinding the Roadless Rule is required to reduce wildfire risk are unfounded. The rule already permits fuel‑reduction treatments and other management actions without adding permanent roads. Moreover, recent research shows wildfire ignitions occur roughly four times more frequently near roads than in roadless areas, indicating that expanding road networks does not inherently lower wildfire risk. The Roadless Rule is also practical financially. The Forest Service already manages about 370,000 miles of roads and carries roughly $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance, with more than half tied to roads. Adding more roads and long‑term upkeep would only increase those costs rather than fixing the financial crisis our country is approaching with $40 trillion of national debt. I support active, science‑based forest management to improve wildfire resilience, forest health and responsible access. But eliminating the Roadless Rule outright is not the solution. Doing so would strip long‑standing protections from more than 44 million acres of national forest backcountry across 37 states. Lastly, I want to share a specific example of the public land that matters most to me and that would be at risk if the Roadless Rule were rescinded. I grew up in Wyoming spending time on 29,659 acres of Forest Service land in the Medicine Bow–Routt National Forest in southeastern Wyoming. This is where I went on my first elk hunt with my dad at age twelve, and it is still where I choose to hunt today. The best elk habitat is inside the Roadless boundary, and it is extremely difficult to find elk near busy roads or infrastructure. As context, about 58 percent of the current elk range is on land protected by the Roadless Rule. This area is not only one of my favorite places to hunt, but also where I went on my first date with my wife. It is where my friends and I take our 4x4s and ATVs on Forest Service Road 211–again, crazy that there are road in Roadless Rule areas–, which is the most fun technical route I have found in Wyoming. It also holds my favorite lake to fish and sits next to the best dispersed campsite I have ever used. Moose, elk, and deer are abundant here, and I value these animals deeply as an outdoorsman and Wyomingite. Medicine Bow Peak rises in the center of this landscape and offers outstanding hiking, climbing, backcountry skiing, and technical mountaineering. On long weekends, this is where nearly everyone I know from southern Wyoming and northern Colorado goes to spend time outside. I come here to use the 15 miles of hiking trails on long weekends for backpacking trips with my wife and dogs. I have attached a map of the area for reference. Removing protections from this landscape would be a profound loss for me, my family, my friends, and countless others. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule remain in place. Thank you, Logan Opsal

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