Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606728

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildlife habitat, wildfire risk, and economic justification for rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, citing specific locations in the Lolo National Forest and the agency's own DEIS data and prior legal rulings.

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
- “Elk and grouse still hold Stark Mountain because roads haven't reached it”
- “elk avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them”
- “upland birds need complex forest structure and that some show site fidelity”
- “Losing these roadless areas... would negatively impact my family”
Water Quality Quantity
- “I fish rivers and tributaries around Missoula that carry runoff from roadless watersheds”
- “Logging and roadwork cause sedimentation that degrades water quality and fish habitat”
- “1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “The agency tried that state-specific replacement before and the Ninth Circuit found it deficient”
- “state plainly what legal basis supports a contrary position now”

What it names

National Forests: Lolo National Forest
Roadless areas: Deep CreekGarden PointPetty MountainReservation DivideStark Mountain
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 gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Elk and grouse still hold Stark Mountain because roads haven't reached it. I hunt those areas to put meat on my family's table. I fish the five major rivers around Missoula and many of the tributaries that fall within the roadless areas now at risk. This rule has kept those places intact, and I am filing this comment to oppose its rescission. Stark Mountain spans 12,601 acres in the Lolo National Forest. I have hunted there for years where elk and grouse thrive due to the lack of roads and pressure. The agency's own record confirms what I see on the ground: elk avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them, and survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. Rescission would undo exactly the conditions that make Stark Mountain productive for wildlife and for my family. The same holds for Petty Mountain at 16,178 acres, Deep Creek at 7,669 acres, Garden Point at 6,322 acres, Reservation Divide at 16,908 acres, all in the Lolo National Forest and all places where elk benefit from roads being absent. The agency's DEIS also notes that upland birds need complex forest structure and that some show site fidelity that limits how far they can adapt when habitat changes. Losing these roadless areas, as I said, would negatively impact my family and our experience on public lands that can't be replicated elsewhere. I ask the agency to address specifically how the elk and upland bird populations in these named inventoried roadless areas will fare under rescission, given the agency's own findings about road avoidance and habitat fidelity. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as a justification. The agency's own 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." That finding directly contradicts the premise that new road access reduces fire risk. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I fish rivers and tributaries around Missoula that carry runoff from roadless watersheds. Logging and roadwork cause sedimentation that degrades water quality and fish habitat. Montana holds 235 inventoried roadless areas totaling 6,395,392 acres, and across the Northern region 1,287 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The economic record does not make the case for rescission either. The agency's own record states: "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." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The Forest Service already carries a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile this proposal with that record, and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already in deficit. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace the national rule. The agency's own prior record acknowledged: "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 tried that state-specific replacement before and the Ninth Circuit found it deficient. The agency should explain, concretely, how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies and addresses its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. A federal court of appeals has already answered 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 agency must address that court's conclusion that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness, and state plainly what legal basis supports a contrary position now. Sincerely, Thomas Franklin Missoula, MT