Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-518433

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 30, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is contradicted by its own record data regarding wildfire ignition rates on roaded lands, fails to reconcile its cost-benefit analysis with the $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and lacks a legal basis to overturn prior appellate court rulings affirming the 2001 rule's statutory authority.

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
- “Grizzly bear, wolverine, elk, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, bighorn sheep”
- “grizzly bear habitat that has everything to lose from increased ignition”
- “roadless areas of the Custer Gallatin are what make finding them possible”
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”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “find solitude, quiet, and a healthy setting”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “I go to the Gallatin because it is intact”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency has not explained... the legal basis for any contrary position”
- “Ninth Circuit identified when the agency previously replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach”

What it names

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

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Gallatin National Forest is where I go to find solitude, quiet, and a healthy setting. I hike and camp there, I stick to existing roads and legal trails, and I carry a camera wherever I go. Grizzly bear, wolverine, elk, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, bighorn sheep, the Gallatin Range itself, part of the northeastern wall of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: these are the things I go looking for, and the roadless areas of the Custer Gallatin are what make finding them possible. The Custer holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 144,945 acres and the Gallatin 14 areas totaling 703,144 acres. I am submitting this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Docket FS-2025-0001, because the agency's own record does not support what it is proposing to do. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a justification for opening roadless areas to road construction. The agency's own prior findings say the opposite. 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 Gallatin Range has been the site of one of the most contentious roadless battles in the country, in grizzly bear habitat that has everything to lose from increased ignition. The agency must explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, specifically the figures in DEIS Table 21 reporting far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economics do not hold up either. The record before the agency 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 that baseline, the agency's own cost-benefit analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system the agency already manages carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I go to the Gallatin because it is intact. The recreation and photography and solitude it offers depend on it staying that way. The agency owes an explanation of how an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding infrastructure whose deferred maintenance costs are already measured in the billions. The proposal argues that state-specific alternatives can substitute for a national rule, but that approach already failed. The record reflects: "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency has its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and it must address how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified when the agency previously replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. That question deserves a direct answer. Finally, the proposal challenges the statutory authority underlying the 2001 rule, but a federal appellate court already resolved that question. 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 court found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency has not explained, in this rulemaking record, the legal basis for any contrary position, and it must do so before proceeding. Sincerely, Jim Barrett Livingston, Montana