Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-268908

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted August 25, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record that the DEIS fails to quantify the increase in impervious surface, runoff volume, and peak flow resulting from road construction in the Bear Swamp IRA, Huron-Manistee National Forest, in violation of Executive Order 11988 and Section 404(f)(2), and documents substantial public opposition to the rescission of the Roadless Rule.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “headwaters of our great rivers”
- “largest source of municipal water supply”
- “Roads are a major cause of water pollution”
- “maintaining clean drinking water”
Public Opinion Support
- “more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission”
- “76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule”
- “bipartisan backing”
- “1.6 million Americans weighed in”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to evaluate flood hazard”
- “Recapture Provision, Section 404(f)(2)”
- “arbitrary and capricious due to a deficiency in an EIS”
- “codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect and care for our forests and other wild landscapes”
- “conditions that sustain connections of this kind cannot be administratively restored”
- “irreversibility as a dispositive consideration”
- “converts permeable forest soils to compacted and paved surfaces”

What it names

National Forests: Huron-Manistee National Forest
Roadless areas: Bear Swamp
Law cited: Executive Order 11988

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Dear USDA Leadership: For a researcher, an analysis that reaches only the conclusions that support its preferred action, and doesn't acknowledge the evidence pointing the other way, isn't analysis — it's justification. I grew up hunting, fishing, hiking, and playing in the woods - and that led me to a career working to protect and care for our forests and other wild landscapes. Once road access is permitted and extraction proceeds, the conditions that sustain connections of this kind cannot be administratively restored; the Department should treat that irreversibility as a dispositive consideration. Regarding the Bear Swamp in the Huron-Manistee National Forest, Michigan: Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to evaluate flood hazard potential before taking actions that alter floodplain hydrology. Road construction in the Bear Swamp IRA, Huron-Manistee National Forest, increases impervious surface area, accelerates stormwater runoff, and elevates peak discharge. Road construction in the Bear Swamp IRA, Huron-Manistee National Forest, converts permeable forest soils to compacted and paved surfaces, increasing impervious area, accelerating runoff concentration, and elevating peak flows in downstream floodplains. Executive Order 11988 requires the agency to assess flood hazard before authorizing road construction. The DEIS must quantify the increase in impervious surface, runoff volume, and peak flow resulting from road construction in the Bear Swamp IRA, Huron-Manistee National Forest, and evaluate downstream flood risk. "Any discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. incidental to any of the exempt activities must have a permit if it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of a water of the U.S. into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the U.S. may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced (Recapture Provision, Section 404(f)(2))." — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District The U.S. National Forests are the headwaters of our great rivers and the largest source of municipal water supply in the nation. According to DellaSala (2011), national forests supply drinking water to at least 124 million people in more than 3,400 communities across 33 states—roughly a third of all national-forest runoff originates in inventoried roadless areas. Roads are a major cause of water pollution: erosion rates from logging roads have been documented as much as 850% higher than from undisturbed forest. Because the 2001 Roadless Rule protects these headwaters, it is vital for maintaining clean drinking water for communities across the country. Major U.S. cities including Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, and Atlanta receive a significant portion of their water supply from national forests. The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation measures, and that support has not faded. Prior to its 2001 enactment, more than 600 public hearings were held nationwide and 1.6 million Americans weighed in to call for protection of these forestlands—more comments than any other federal rule had received at the time. When USDA announced its rescission proposal, the compressed 21-day public comment period in late 2025 drew approximately 600,000 additional comments. A detailed roadless.org analysis of the comment record found that more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission. A February 2026 Pew Charitable Trusts national poll found that 76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule compared to just 13% opposed, with bipartisan backing from 71% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 80% of independents. More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025 (S.2042 / H.R.3930) to codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back without an act of Congress. “When a party argues that an agency action was arbitrary and capricious due to a deficiency in an EIS, the reviewing court must account for the fact that NEPA is a purely procedural statute. Under NEPA, an agency's only obligation is to prepare an adequate report. Judicial review is typically conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act's deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a court asks not whether it agrees with the agency decision, but rather only whether the agency action was reasonable and reasonably explained. Agencies must take a 'hard look' at the environmental consequences of their actions in the context of projects under consideration. — Supreme Court of the United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf)” Sustaining the Rule is the outcome consistent with the Department's rulemaking history, its statutory responsibilities, and the record before it. In solidarity,