Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-523904

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 30, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the DEIS fails to apply cited scientific findings on elk survival, habitat fragmentation, and sediment generation to the specific acreage and municipal water intakes in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, and fails to assess the reliance interests created by the 2001 Roadless Rule.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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

Wildlife Habitat
- “elk depend on roadless conditions”
- “elk survival rates increased during a road closure”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
Water Quality Quantity
- “skid roads... are the main cause of soil erosion”
- “contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity”
- “quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “reliance interests in the current rule”
- “legal baseline that keeps road building out”
- “required to identify and account for what its prior policy created”

What it names

National Forests: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
Roadless areas: Basin CreekCattle GulchMiddle Mountain

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas I am writing about sit inside the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in Montana: Cattle Gulch at 19,390 acres, O'Neil Creek at 6,279 acres, Basin Creek at 9,500 acres, Potosi at 5,194 acres, Middle Mountain and the Tobacco Roots at 96,487 acres, and the Highlands at 20,044 acres. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres. These are the places I am commenting to protect. The agency's own analysis acknowledges that elk depend on roadless conditions, then walks away from that finding without drawing any conclusion about what rescission would do to elk populations or to the hunters who pursue them. The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat. That is a documented, causal relationship between road access and elk mortality. The areas I named in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are elk country. Citing a survival effect and then projecting no population-level consequence is not analysis; it is a citation without a conclusion. I ask that the agency project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity across the areas that would be opened under this proposal, and that it do so in terms specific enough to be reviewed. The same pattern appears on habitat fragmentation. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. That is a wide and significant range. The affected environment runs to 40.1 million acres nationally. Nowhere in the document does the agency apply that cited range to the acreage actually at stake. A finding that biodiversity losses could fall anywhere between 13 and 75 percent, left unattached to any landscape of defined size, tells a reader nothing about what this rule change would actually do. The Tobacco Roots unit alone covers 96,487 acres; the six areas I named together exceed 156,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. The agency should apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment and explain what outcome it projects, rather than leaving a number floating without application. Water quality is where the analysis falls shortest. The DEIS states that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." Across the Northern Region, which includes Montana, 1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The agency puts a sediment figure in the record and then projects nothing about where that sediment goes. Downstream communities and water systems connected to these Montana drainages are left without any assessment of what increased road building and timber activity in roadless watersheds would deliver to their intakes. The agency must quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. Finally, the proposal itself invited the very reliance interests the agency then failed to assess. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. I rely on the 2001 rule as the legal baseline that keeps road building out of the areas I named. When an agency changes course, it is required to identify and account for what its prior policy created. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it proceeds further. Sincerely, Nathaniel Meadows Bozeman, Montana