Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579050

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding bear habitat protection in Bear Swamp, the legal validity of the 2001 rule based on Tenth Circuit precedent, the impact on municipal water intakes, the accuracy of the small entity certification, and the failure to assess reliance interests, while requesting specific explanations and a withdrawal of the certification.

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
- “photograph wildlife, bears included”
- “increased contact and conflict from open roads in bear habitat can end in bear mortality”
- “protect bear populations in areas like Bear Swamp”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “give me solitude and peace”
- “find the kind of quiet that has become genuinely rare”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “challenged and found wanting in federal court”
- “Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “explain on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding”
Water Quality Quantity
- “286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “account for downstream water quality effects on those intakes”
- “specific protections would remain for those watersheds”

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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The loudness of the current world is nearly unavoidable. Places like Bear Swamp in the Huron-Manistee National Forest in Michigan give me solitude and peace that I can only thank God for. I go to those places to photograph landscapes and wildlife, and I go to show others what is there, the way I one day want to show my kids, so they can protect and grow what remains. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put that directly at risk, and I am filing this comment to oppose Docket FS-2025-0001. Michigan holds 6 inventoried roadless areas totaling 16,124 acres. Bear Swamp, at 3,915 acres, is among them. These are not abstract acres. They are places I visit to photograph wildlife, bears included, and to find the kind of quiet that has become genuinely rare. The agency's own record notes that increased contact and conflict from open roads in bear habitat can end in bear mortality, and that shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. Opening roadless areas to new road construction does not leave wildlife where it is. I ask that the agency explain, with specificity, how it intends to protect bear populations in areas like Bear Swamp if the national rule is removed and local decisions are made without a binding floor. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. The agency's own record shows it has been down that path. The 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. That approach was challenged and found wanting in federal court. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally reduce nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. The proposal also argues the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority. A federal appellate court reviewed that exact question and held otherwise. The record states: 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 Tenth Circuit held that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. I ask that the agency explain on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. Across the Eastern region, which includes Michigan, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean resources matter to me. The agency should account for downstream water quality effects on those intakes if the rule is removed, and it should explain what specific protections would remain for those watersheds. On the economic analysis: The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. That certification is reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, not the firms actually permitted in the affected areas. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. I think public land needs to be managed for the good of all, for clean resources, for mental stability, to show our children the world that once was, and to avoid destroying any more of what once was. I have planned around the assumption that Bear Swamp and places like it would remain protected. That is exactly the kind of reliance interest the agency invited and then declined to assess. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Bryce Voss Elgin, Illinois