Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-554270

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 18/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire risks and fails to apply cited scientific findings on elk survival and habitat fragmentation to the 40.1 million acres of affected environment, while also noting the agency's rejection of Alternative 3 which was designed to protect wildlife connectivity.

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
- “abundance of wildlife, including moose, elk, mustelids, and birds of prey”
- “elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “protect big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity”
Water Quality Quantity
- “We need fresh, clean water in the west, not more roads”
- “325 municipal water intakes across the Rocky Mountain region sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “roads and their facilities can produce a substantial share of the sediment from a timber sale”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “escape, to camp in the front country, backcountry, or simply boondock somewhere remote”
- “unparalleled solitude, natural beauty”
- “Access to solitude, wildness, clean water, quiet, and outdoor recreation is part of our heritage”
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”
- “community wildfire protection”

What it names

National Forests: Bighorn National Forest Black Hills National Forest Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest
Roadless areas: Beaver ParkBridger PeakDevils CanyonLibby FlatsRocky MountainSibley Lake
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Bighorn and Snowy ranges are where I go to escape, to camp in the front country, backcountry, or simply boondock somewhere remote. I return to these forests for unparalleled solitude, natural beauty, and an abundance of wildlife, including moose, elk, mustelids, and birds of prey. I photograph charismatic mammals large and small and watch raptors and woodpeckers in the forest. At Libby Flats in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, I have fond memories with family taking in the views and the wildlife, from elk to marmots. I want to see this place protected for others in the future. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Docket FS-2025-0001. Our public land should be managed for the benefit of the American public and their children, not for private for-profit interests. Access to solitude, wildness, clean water, quiet, and outdoor recreation is part of our heritage as Americans. Rescission of the rule puts all of that at risk across the roadless areas I named in this comment, including Sibley Lake and Devils Canyon in the Bighorn National Forest, Bridger Peak and Libby Flats in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, and Beaver Park in the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. The agency's own record contradicts the wildfire justification for this rescission. The DEIS 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." If that finding is in the agency's own draft environmental impact statement, the proposal to open these areas to road building requires the agency to explain why it departs from those findings. On the question of permitting burden, the agency's own description of the existing rule notes that it already carries exceptions: "It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Before rescinding a rule that protects roadless areas across millions of acres, the agency must identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by those existing exceptions, including the ones for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection, and it must quantify those burdens with actual data. I rely on the watershed shaped and safeguarded by Black Hills National Forest. South Dakota holds 8 inventoried roadless areas totaling 79,597 acres, with 325 municipal water intakes across the Rocky Mountain region sitting in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. We need fresh, clean water in the west, not more roads. The agency has documented that roads and their facilities can produce a substantial share of the sediment from a timber sale; opening roadless areas to new construction is unreasonable. The elk I look for in these forests are directly addressed by the agency's own citations, and the record falls short. 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 finding appears and then stops. No projection of population-level effects on elk or other big game across the affected environment follows anywhere in the document. The agency must project those effects and their consequences for big game populations and hunter opportunity before finalizing any rescission. The same gap appears on habitat fragmentation. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The moose, elk, and birds of prey that draw me to these forests depend on intact, connected habitat. Citing that range without applying it to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment is not analysis; it is notation. The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the full affected acreage and show what the record actually predicts for the wildlife those acres support. The agency built Alternative 3 in direct response to commenters who asked it to protect big game habitat, fisheries, and wildlife connectivity, and then selected the alternative that protects none of it. That choice requires a reasoned explanation. What does the record show drove the agency away from the alternative its own process generated in response to public concern about wildlife? That question deserves a direct answer before this proceeding closes. Sincerely, Elizabeth L Custer, South Dakota