Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-473524

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 19/24Owed an answerPosted September 23, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) materially misrepresents the 2020 Alaska FEIS by deleting specific protective grounds (LUDs and T77/Conservation Priority Area prohibitions) and altering the scope of the 'minimal effects' conclusion, while also failing to adequately disclose Clean Water Act Section 404 impacts for the Suntop IRA.

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Clean Water Act Section 404 Deficiencies”
- “DEIS Materially Alters the 2020 Alaska FEIS Fish Habitat Finding”
- “fails NEPA's hard-look requirement”
- “The 2001 Roadless Rule has withstood a quarter-century of litigation”
Water Quality Quantity
- “jurisdictional waters of the United States”
- “quantify fill discharges at each potential crossing”
- “changes watershed protection status”
- “management-caused sediment input to streams”
Wildlife Habitat
- “effects to fish habitat”
- “high-value salmon watersheds”
- “T77 watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas”
- “protective differences among alternatives for these waters”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “professional photography guide”
- “taking paying clients into backcountry”
- “shared that peace with clients”
- “Once a road goes in, that character is lost for generations”

What it names

Roadless areas: Suntop
Law cited: 137 F.3d 1372 284 F.3d 1062 7 CFR 1b
Works cited: 2020 FEIS

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

Re: Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket # FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66) Dear Mr. Schultz, I'm a professional photography guide who has spent fifteen years taking paying clients into backcountry protected by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I respectfully ask the Department to reconsider the proposed rescission. My work spans national forests nationwide, but Washington State shows what's at stake. I've watched the sunrise from Suntop in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest countless times, photographed the stars from its ridges, and shared that peace with clients. Once a road goes in, that character is lost for generations. My opposition rests on conditions in places like Suntop and on deficiencies in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 1. Clean Water Act Section 404 Deficiencies The Suntop Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) contains jurisdictional waters of the United States, including stream channels and wetlands subject to Section 404 permitting. Every road stream crossing places fill material (culverts, bridge footings, approach fills) into these waters, a Section 404 discharge. The DEIS must disclose the number and location of jurisdictional waters in the Suntop IRA, quantify fill discharges at each potential crossing, and document the Section 404 permitting pathway for each. Deferring CWA impacts to site-specific analysis is not adequate when the programmatic decision itself changes watershed protection status. 2. DEIS Materially Alters the 2020 Alaska FEIS Fish Habitat Finding At page 318 (Appendix 4), the DEIS states: "The 2020 FEIS evaluated effects to fish habitat and found that there would be overall effects to fish habitat are expected to be minimal whether the Roadless Rule is in place or not, because of the strong protections to fish habitats provided by Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the riparian management strategy (page 3-138)." The page cite is right, but the text is altered. The 2020 FEIS reads: "Overall effects to fish habitat are expected to be minimal under all alternatives, because of the strong protections to fish habitats provided by Forest Plan LUDs, Forest-wide standards and guidelines including the riparian management strategy, and the lack of old-growth harvest or associated road construction allowed in the T77 watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas." Three material alterations: It deletes the third ground entirely: no old-growth harvest or road construction in T77 watersheds and Conservation Priority Areas, the only constraint on roads in high-value salmon watersheds. It deletes "LUDs." LUDs allocate management prescriptions; standards condition activity. They are distinct protections. It substitutes "whether the Roadless Rule is in place or not" for "under all alternatives." The 2020 FEIS noted protective differences among alternatives for these waters. At page 243, the DEIS repeats this conclusion without attribution, presenting it as its own finding. Yet the same page states: "Roads pose the greatest risk to fish resources on the Tongass, partly because they pose the largest risk of management-caused sediment input to streams." The DEIS can't name road sediment the greatest risk while resting a minimal-effects conclusion on protections stripped of the road ban in high-value watersheds. Appendix 4 discloses that the Tongass Plan Revision will consider alternatives without IRA designations, so the DEIS relies on a finding predicated on protections this rulemaking removes. Requested Actions Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v) and 1b.7(f)(3), I request that the Forest Service: Correct the restatements at pages 318 and 243 to reproduce the full 2020 FEIS basis, including Forest Plan LUDs and the T77/Conservation Priority Area prohibition, and restore "under all alternatives." Supply attribution and a page citation at page 243. Supplement the Tongass aquatic analysis under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(iii) to state whether "minimal effects" holds without the T77/Conservation Priority Area restrictions, with a road-mileage and stream-crossing basis. These are programmatic questions that can't be deferred. A conclusion without record support fails NEPA's hard-look requirement. (See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998); Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002).) The 2001 Roadless Rule has withstood a quarter-century of litigation, review, and administration changes. That durability warrants leaving it in place. Please abandon this proposed rescission. Sincerely, Toby