Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-397903

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 14, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's record contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk and economic benefits, specifically citing DEIS Table 21 and Cost Benefit Analysis data that fail to support the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the Bear Swamp area in Michigan.

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

  • 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”
    • “ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “net present value range spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “Ninth Circuit identified specific deficiencies in that state-petition approach”
    • “Tenth Circuit... held: 'Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE'”
    • “found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
    • “agency owes the public a clear explanation of the legal basis for any contrary position”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “286 municipal water intakes in the Eastern region”
    • “sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “including those in Michigan”

What it names

National Forests
Huron-Manistee National Forest
Roadless areas
Bear Swamp
Law cited
28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Bear Swamp in the Huron-Manistee National Forest is 3,915 acres of Michigan roadless land I want to see protected. Michigan holds 6 inventoried roadless areas totaling 16,124 acres. What happens to those acres under this proposal is what I am addressing here. The agency's stated rationale for rescission includes wildfire and fuels management, but its own record undercuts that argument directly. 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 the agency now proposes to open roadless areas including Bear Swamp to road construction on fire-safety grounds, it needs to explain why it is departing from that finding and how the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, supports rather than defeats the proposal. The economic case for rescission is no stronger. The agency's own record concedes that "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." Set against that, 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, with a net present value range spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range does not establish a net benefit. The agency should explain on the record how an action whose own analysis cannot demonstrate a net positive outcome justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and what that means for the 286 municipal water intakes in the Eastern region that sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, including those in Michigan. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but the agency's own prior rulemaking record expressed dissatisfaction with a one-size-fits-all nationwide approach when it previously replaced the 2001 rule. That replacement was challenged in court and the Ninth Circuit identified specific deficiencies in that state-petition approach, including that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. That question requires a direct answer, particularly for a state like Michigan where the total roadless inventory is small and any incremental loss is disproportionate. On the question of statutory authority, the agency cannot treat the matter as unsettled without confronting what courts have already decided. The Tenth Circuit, in reversing a district court injunction against the 2001 rule, 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." That court found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and found that it did not create de facto wilderness. The agency owes the public a clear explanation of the legal basis for any contrary position and how it weighs that appellate holding in its current analysis. Bear Swamp is a small piece of ground. Taken together, Michigan's roadless acres are modest by any national measure. What the agency is proposing is permanent, and the record it has assembled does not support the action. I ask that all four of these points receive a substantive response before any final decision is made. Sincerely, CS Manistee, MI

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless