Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-595737

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS contains specific data on bird abundance decline, habitat fragmentation, and fire ignition rates on roaded lands, but fails to project these impacts across the 40.1 million acres of roadless areas or reconcile the rescission with its own findings on wildfire risk and administrative burden.

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
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “distance is not incidental... condition under which those birds exist”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk... could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21”
- “fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
Governance Policy Process
- “The agency has cited the evidence and then declined to apply it”
- “No projection of what it means across the 40.1 million acres... follows anywhere in the record”
- “The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the full affected acreage”
- “The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings... It has held none to undo it”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “the rule as written already contains exceptions”
- “36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)”
- “identify, by name and category, which specific burdens are not addressed by those exceptions”
- “A general claim of permitting difficulty is not a showing”

What it names

Roadless areas: Green Mountain
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

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 birds I look for require quiet. Finding snail kites in the Everglades, warblers in the Green Mountain National Forest, nuthatches in Lake Placid, yellow-billed cuckoos in the Appalachians: each of those searches has taken me miles from the nearest road or person. That distance is not incidental. It is the condition under which those birds exist in any useful abundance, and it is the thing this proposed rescission would put at risk across 40.1 million acres of national forest roadless areas. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement documents what roads do to birds. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. (source: DEIS; Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) I photograph in places where there are no signs of human contact in the woods, because roads and development ruin the shots and ruin the habitat at the same time. The agency has cited the evidence and then declined to apply it. I ask the agency to explain how it reached a decision to rescind the rule while holding that evidence in its own file, and what weight, if any, it assigned those findings in reaching that conclusion. The fragmentation data receive the same treatment. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. That range appears in the document. No projection of what it means across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows anywhere in the record. That is not analysis; it is citation used as decoration. The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the full affected acreage and put that projection in the record before any final decision is made. On wildfire, 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." The proposal cites wildfire and fuels management as grounds for rescission. Those two positions cannot coexist without explanation. The agency needs to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment. On administrative burden, the rule as written already contains exceptions. It generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of "reserved or outstanding rights" or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3). If existing mineral leases, community wildfire protection, and public health and safety are already carved out, the agency must identify, by name and category, which specific burdens are not addressed by those exceptions, and quantify them. A general claim of permitting difficulty is not a showing. The massive shrinking of national monuments, the splitting of forests with roads: I find it difficult to understand how anyone reviews the agency's own findings on ignition rates, fragmentation, and bird abundance and concludes that opening these areas serves the public. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write the rule protecting them. It has held none to undo it. The asymmetry alone demands explanation. I oppose this rescission and ask the agency to answer each of these points in the final record. Sincerely, Andrew Johnson Bolton Landing, New York