Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-591711

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's own DEIS and economic analyses contradict the justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule by showing higher fire risks on roaded lands, a lack of net economic benefit, and significant adverse impacts on specific roadless areas in Wisconsin and Michigan, while citing Tenth Circuit precedent affirming the rule's statutory authority.

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “public land should be managed for preservation, not private profit”
- “More than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species live in the affected area”
- “likely to adversely affect, hundreds of listed species and dozens of designated critical habitats”
- “ecological health is not incidental to its value but the point of it”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Chase Creek, at 6,140 acres, is a spring-fed stream worth preserving”
- “286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Bear Swamp, at 3,915 acres, is a fen and wetland”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit resolved that question”
- “Ninth Circuit already reviewed that state-by-state strategy and found it wanting”
- “agency must address that court's conclusion that the 2001 rule fell within authority”
- “agency's own record does not support doing so”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”

What it names

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 knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Boundary Waters draw me back to paddle them. The forests along those shores are what I photograph. I believe public land should be managed for preservation, not private profit, and the areas I am writing about make that principle concrete: Foursection, Shelp Lake, Chase Creek, Bear Swamp, Shoe Lake Islands, and Wheeler Lake Islands, all in the Chequamegon-Nicolet and Huron-Manistee National Forests. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put every one of them at risk, and the agency's own record does not support doing so. Wisconsin holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 68,987 acres. Foursection, at 2,037 acres, holds wetlands, forest, and wildlife whose whole ecosystem needs protection. Shelp Lake, at 285 acres, is remote, and that remoteness is precisely what makes preservation so important: keeping it untouched by development depends on the rule staying in place. Chase Creek, at 6,140 acres, is a spring-fed stream worth preserving on those terms alone. Across in Michigan, Bear Swamp, at 3,915 acres, is a fen and wetland whose ecological health is not incidental to its value but the point of it. The Shoe Lake Islands, just 7 acres, support waterfowl including black ducks, harbor endangered bats, shelter wild eagles, and the transition land between forest and water there is culturally important to the Ojibwe. The Wheeler Lake Islands, 5 acres, are wild lakes and should stay that way. What all of these places share is that they are protected now, and this proposal would end that. The agency justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but its own record undermines that argument. 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." The agency must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The proposal also rests on claims about timber and energy economics. 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." I want the agency to reconcile the proposal with its own economic analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and to explain how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule. The agency's own record notes that "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." But the Ninth Circuit already reviewed that state-by-state strategy and found it wanting. I ask that the agency address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies. The proposal also questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit resolved that question. Its holding reads: "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 fell within authority granted by the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness, and state plainly what basis it claims for any contrary position. More than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species live in the affected area. The agency's own draft biological assessments conclude the action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, hundreds of listed species and dozens of designated critical habitats. Across the Eastern region, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The Shoe Lake Islands waterfowl, the Bear Swamp fen, the Chase Creek stream corridor: these are not abstractions. The agency must respond to these specific harms before any rescission moves forward. Sincerely, Annemarie Adams Madison, Wisconsin