Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-441322

Neutral / unclearA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 17, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS fails to provide traceable sources for three critical quantitative baselines—the 44.7-million-acre scope, the 500-acre annual timber harvest/1.8-million-acre fuels reduction figures, and the 9,500-mile road baseline—rendering the effects comparison unsupported by reasoned decisionmaking under NEPA and State Farm.

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, 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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “detailed statement NEPA requires, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)”
- “not the product of reasoned decisionmaking”
- “Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.”
- “7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3)”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “quantitative figures that carry its comparison of effects are not traceable”
- “neither figure can be reproduced or checked”
- “baselines cannot be traced to a disclosed source”
- “factual predicates the agency has not disclosed”

What it names

Law cited: 137 F.3d 1146 137 F.3d 1146 463 U.S. 29 66 FR 3244 7 CFR 1b

The comment

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

The DEIS maintains a References Cited section at pp. 249-285, but the quantitative figures that carry its comparison of effects are not traceable to it. Three examples, each verified against the document: First, the 44.7-million-acre baseline. At p. 9 the DEIS states that "[t]he 2001 Roadless Rule applies to approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands, including in Alaska." This is the denominator for every acreage comparison in the document. The only citations on that page are 66 FR 3244, attached to the rescission of the 2001 Rule, and 7 CFR 1b, attached to which NEPA procedures govern. Neither supports the acreage, and no other source for it appears. Second, the implementation figures at p. 15. The DEIS states that Forest Service data "shows an average of 500 acres per year of timber harvest and a total of 1.8 million acres of hazardous fuels reduction within IRAs managed under the 2001 Roadless Rule," and it names its source: "The best available information on activities that have been implemented within IRAs over the last decade comes from the Forest Service Activity Tracking System." Naming the system is not disclosing the figure. The Forest Service Activity Tracking System has no entry in the DEIS's References Cited, and the passage gives no query date, no reporting period beyond "the last decade," no system version, and no list of the activity codes counted as timber harvest or as hazardous fuels reduction. As disclosed, neither figure can be reproduced or checked. This matters because the 500-acre figure is the DEIS's own measure of how little timber harvest occurred under the 2001 Rule, and it sets the baseline against which the magnitude of change under alternatives 2 and 3 is characterized. Third, the road baseline in Table 3. At p. 31 the DEIS states that "[t]here are currently about 9,500 miles of roads within the potentially affected IRAs (9,400 miles of NFS roads, 100 miles of private roads) representing about 2.5 percent of the NFS transportation system." No source is cited for the mileage, for the split between NFS and private roads, or for the 2.5-percent denominator. This is the entire quantitative basis for the transportation row of the DEIS's comparison of effects across all three alternatives. These are not incidental statistics. The acreage bounds the scope of the action; the harvest and fuels figures set the baseline against which the effects of rescission are measured; the road mileage and its 2.5-percent framing are the sole quantitative support for the DEIS's characterization of transportation-system effects. An effects comparison whose baselines cannot be traced to a disclosed source cannot support the conclusions drawn from it, and the detailed statement NEPA requires, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), is not supplied by conclusions resting on figures neither the public nor the decisionmaker can verify. An agency decision resting on factual predicates the agency has not disclosed is not the product of reasoned decisionmaking. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 1998). I request that, for each of the three figures identified above, the final EIS do one of the following: (a) cite the source and add a corresponding entry to References Cited; (b) where the source is an internal Forest Service data system, state the system, the query date, the reporting period, and the activity or road codes included, so that the figure can be reproduced; or (c) correct the figure if no source supports it as stated. Because the same defect recurs, I further request that the final EIS apply the same treatment to every quantitative figure appearing in Table 3 and in the Comparison of Alternatives, and that the response to comments identify where in the final EIS or the supporting record each disclosure or correction was made, as 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3) provides. Finally, because the reasoned-decisionmaking defect described here goes to the proposed rule as well as to the environmental impact statement, I ask that this comment be addressed in the preamble to any final rule in addition to the final EIS response to comments. A response placed only in the EIS appendix would leave the rule-side objection unanswered.