Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-613815

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's DEIS and regulatory analysis, including the failure to reconcile cited bird abundance data with road expansion, the use of national averages instead of local impacts for small entity certification, the lack of quantification for increased wildfire ignitions and sediment delivery, and the failure to weigh reliance interests as invited.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.

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.
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.
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
- “road presence in forested habitat is associated with declining bird richness”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
- “effects become variables I cannot control for and cannot attribute to other causes”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas”
- “human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads”
- “road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires”
- “no projection of increased ignitions follows from it”
Water Quality Quantity
- “skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion”
- “can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity”
- “quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanies this proposal cannot stand”
- “certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “required to assess the reliance interests its prior policy created”
- “withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas”

What it names

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

Fishing the Chesapeake Bay is how I connect with my grandfather. I have fished it since I was little. That water, and the birds above and around it, are what bring me to this comment. I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am currently conducting a research project on bird diversity, tracking calls to understand how feral cats affect bird populations. The agency's own environmental analysis found that road presence in forested habitat is associated with declining bird richness, and the DEIS cites findings that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. (Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) My research depends on understanding what drives population change in birds. If roads enter currently roadless habitat and both noise and physical disturbance suppress bird abundance and drive species to avoid entire zones, those effects become variables I cannot control for and cannot attribute to other causes. The agency should explain, on the record, how it reconciles its own citation of these bird-abundance findings with a proposal that will expand road access into habitat where those declines are documented to occur. The regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanies this proposal cannot stand. 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. The certification reaches its conclusion by distributing the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas. The analysis concedes some firms may lose these receipts. A certification that ignores the firms actually at risk in the affected areas in favor of a national average is not a genuine assessment. 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. The agency specifically invited comment on reliance interests. 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. When an agency changes course it is required to assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. Comments like this one represent exactly such interests, and the agency invited them and then built no mechanism to weigh them. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. The agency's own fire data argues against the proposal. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself acknowledges that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. That finding sits in the same document used to justify rescission, and no projection of increased ignitions follows from it. The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard before it can rely on fire management as a justification here. Finally, the agency has quantified the erosion problem and then declined to follow it to its conclusion. The DEIS states that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." That number appears in the document. No projection of sediment delivery to downstream water users follows it. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. Sincerely, Ulysses M. Freeland, MD