Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-510464

Neutral / unclearA1 strongSubstance 9/24Owed an answerPosted September 29, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the draft EIS's quantified characterizations of the public comment record (99% opposed, 1% in support, 90% brief sentiments) lack disclosed coding criteria and citations, rendering them unsupported inputs to the alternatives analysis, and requests a factual correction or qualification of these figures under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v).

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

Governance Policy Process
- “request a factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v)”
- “criteria by which any letter was assigned to any of those categories”
- “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made”
- “Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)”
- “7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3)”
- “final EIS should cite where that correction is accounted for”
- “departure from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule”

What it names

Law cited: 463 U.S. 29 5 U.S.C. 706 7 CFR 1b

The comment

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

The draft EIS states, at page 17 and again at page 304, that "[o]f the comment letters received, approximately 99 percent were generally opposed to the proposed rule recission, while approximately 1 percent were generally in support." The same paragraph at page 17 states that "[m]ore than 90 percent of the letters received contained brief sentiments or opinions on the proposed action." Both are quantified findings about the notice of intent comment record. Neither carries a citation, and the draft EIS discloses no criteria by which any letter was assigned to any of those categories. The document says the coding occurred. Appendix 3 states at page 305 that "[a]ll NOI comments were reviewed, coded, and analyzed to develop the below overarching themes, concerns, and recommendations." That is the only appearance of the word "coded" in the draft EIS. What accompanies it is a list of four things the agency did in response — modifying the proposed action or developing alternatives, using information to inform the analysis, making factual corrections, and considering but making no change — and, at footnote 72, the definition of "substantive" the agency applied in deciding which comments to summarize. Those disclose how comments were sorted for theme and for response. Neither discloses how a letter was determined to be "generally opposed" or "generally in support," how a letter expressing mixed views was assigned, how form letters and letter-generator submissions were treated, or how petition signatures bear on the percentages, when the same paragraph reports over 220,000 letters representing over 625,000 submissions. This bears on the analysis, not only on the summary. The draft EIS states at page 17 that "[c]omments received in response to the NOI were used to inform the range of alternatives and environmental impact analyses," and Appendix 3 states that the coded comments produced the themes, concerns, and recommendations the agency responded to. The sort therefore determined which concerns reached the alternatives development described in Chapter 2. A quantified characterization of the comment record that the record itself cannot reproduce is not merely a descriptive summary; it is an input to the range of alternatives, and the draft EIS says so. I request a factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v). The final EIS should either support the 99 percent, 1 percent, and 90 percent figures by stating the criteria used to assign a letter to each category — including the treatment of mixed and ambiguous letters, form letters, and petition signatures — and identifying where that determination is documented in the proposal record, or qualify those figures to what the record supports. Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3), the final EIS should cite where that correction is accounted for. This is not a request that the agency perform new work; it is a request that a number the agency chose to publish be supported by the record that carries it, or else be stated as the approximation the record can support. Separately, and addressed to the final rule rather than to the environmental impact statement: if the preamble relies on any characterization of the volume or direction of public comment in explaining the departure from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, that characterization must rest on something the record shows, and the agency must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). A response to this point in the final EIS comment appendix does not answer it in the preamble.