Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-274364

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific deficiencies in the DEIS where the agency fails to reconcile its own prior findings regarding wildfire ignition risks, bird abundance impacts, the erosion of national values under state-by-state approaches, and habitat fragmentation projections with its proposal to rescind the 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, Evidence.

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
- “photograph birds and other wildlife”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “31 % of species avoid noise entirely”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “reconcile the rescission with that ignition data”
- “exceptions for community wildfire protection plans”
Governance Policy Process
- “Ninth Circuit rejected the last attempt to substitute state-by-state management”
- “incremental local decisions can erode nationally significant roadless values”
- “inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach”
- “explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “travels to roadless areas... to hike”
- “simply be in a space that is wild”
- “accessible to us”
- “no interest in seeing it managed in ways... cause harm”

What it names

National Forests: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Superior National Forest
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 My family travels to roadless areas in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest year-round, even in winter, to hike, photograph birds and other wildlife, and to simply be in a space that is wild. The Foursection area, at 2,037 acres, is among the few roadless places in the upper midwest accessible to us. Taking trips out west is not feasible for us in terms of time and cost. The Foursection is what we have, and we have no interest in seeing it managed in ways the agency's own record shows cause harm. The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire management grounds. 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 does not appear to be reconciled anywhere in the proposal with the argument that road access is needed for fuels treatment. DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas. I ask the agency to explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings re: fire, and reconcile the rescission with that ignition data, directly and specifically. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and road-noise in roadless areas cuts bird abundance by over a quarter: 31 % of species avoid noise entirely. (Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) These aren't speculative findings; they're findings the agency itself incorporated into its own analysis. The proposal doesn't explain how rescission is consistent with them. The agency should explain. The proposal also argues that state-specific approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record states: "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." Note also that the Ninth Circuit rejected the last attempt to substitute state-by-state management for national rule, precisely because incremental local decisions can erode nationally significant roadless values. Wisconsin holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 68,987 acres. The Superior National Forest holds 13 inventoried roadless areas totaling 62,004 acres feeding the Boundary Waters. These aren't local concerns. I ask the agency to address its own prior finding about the erosion of national values under state-by-state approaches, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency went down that road. On administrative burden, the proposal claims the rule imposes permitting and management costs that justify rescission. But the rule already provides for exceptions, including exceptions for mineral leases and community wildfire protection plans. Lastly, DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13-75 %. That range appears in the record and then stops. No projection across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows from it. A number cited and then set aside is not analysis. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the full scope of the potentially affected environment before finalizing any action.