Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-424487

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
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.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “protect critical habitat”
- “unique wildlife populations”
- “last remaining, historic, winter deer yarding range”
- “saving the remaining areas are crucial”
Water Quality Quantity
- “crucial water quality areas”
- “filtering the headwaters of the Sable River”
- “rely on well water for their daily existence”
- “Keeps this water source protected is critical for safe drinking water”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “numerous unique plants that occur in this area”
- “maintain this relatively small percentage of USFS land as unique, special places”
- “protect critical habitat”

What it names

Roadless areas: Bear Swamp

The comment

I want to urge you to leave the Roadless Rule intact. I live within the boundaries of the Huron Manistee National Forest, and I am very knowledgeable regarding the establishment of the Roadless Area Bear Swamp. My husband is retired from the USFS, and in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s spent a lot of his work time involved in doing all of the survey work to gain this specific designation. I know how much effort and public review went into this, and I imagine the same process occurred for all other RARE2 roadless areas around the country. These special areas were not designed to merely reduce timber harvest, but were meant to protect critical habitat, crucial water quality areas, and unique wildlife populations. In the specific roadless area, Bear Swamp, in my part of the world, a last remaining, historic, winter deer yarding range was protected. This unique cedar swamp has the ability to support a significant deer herd in the rare, but occasional severe winter. Amazingly, deer that have never experienced severe winter conditions will innately migrate into such deer yards when the need arises. These unique yarding areas have been mostly eliminated, and saving the remaining areas are crucial. In addition to benefiting wildlife, there are numerous unique plants that occur in this area. Plants that are important in filtering the headwaters of the Sable River, which is a watershed where most residents in the watershed rely on well water for their daily existence. Keeps this water source protected is critical for safe drinking water. I believe roadless areas not only protect habitat, but also reduce illegal activities such as illegal timber harvest, drug activity and hunting and fishing violations. Even in regular roaded areas, the USFS has been closing roads in recent years, as a measure to save on maintenance costs and efforts. They know that closing roads has reduced illegal activities and helped to reduce maintenance due to road degradation by off road vehicles. As I am mostly experienced with the Bear Swamp roadless areas, I imagine that similar situations exist all around the country. Roadless areas were not enacted on a whim, and it is important to maintain this relatively small percentage of USFS land as unique, special places. Please leave the Roadless Rule in tact.