Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-529133

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the Draft EIS presents unsourced acreage figures for the National Wilderness Preservation System and National Forest System lands on page 195, creating a gap in the baseline data used for impact analysis, and requests a factual correction in the Final EIS to identify the source and effective date of these figures.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “enjoy the solitude and wild nature of these areas for hiking, camping, trail, running”
- “want to preserve this for generations to come”
- “wider range of recreation opportunities with fewer restrictions is available”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “I request a factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v)”
- “The accuracy and provenance of a baseline quantity... is information that meaningfully informs the consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts”
- “An agency may not present as established fact a figure its own record does not support”
Wildlife Habitat
- “protects and promotes both wildlife”
- “ensure longevity for our forests for wildlife and people”
- “wilderness character”

What it names

Law cited: 463 U.S. 29 7 CFR 1b 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53)
Works cited: Landres et al. 2015

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Hello, I am writing in support of the roadless rule, which protects and promotes both wildlife and recreation for our national forests. I live near several wilderness areas in western North Carolina and enjoy the solitude and wild nature of these areas for hiking, camping, trail, running, and want to preserve this for generations to come. The road this rule was created to ensure longevity for our forests for wildlife and people. Let’s keep it that way! Unsourced National Wilderness Preservation System Acreage Figures (DEIS p. 195) The Draft EIS states, at page 195, in the Wilderness discussion under "Recreation Opportunities and Setting — Effects of Alternative 3 – Modified Rule": "The National Wilderness Preservation System includes approximately 111.9 million acres; of these, approximately 36.7 million acres are on National Forest System lands." Neither figure is sourced. The sentence names no inventory, no dataset, and no date, and no source is supplied anywhere else in the document — each figure appears exactly once in the Draft EIS, in this one sentence. The only reference in the passage, Landres et al. 2015, appears three sentences later and is attached to a different proposition: the qualities the Forest Service and other wilderness-administering agencies read into "wilderness character." Nothing in the Draft EIS supports the acreages themselves. This is not a formality, because the quantity is not fixed. The Draft EIS states two sentences later that "Congress has the sole authority for designating additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System," and Congress has continued to exercise it. Without a named inventory and an effective date, a reader cannot tell whether 111.9 million and 36.7 million describe the system as it stands, the system as of some earlier compilation, or an internal calculation — nor whether the two figures were drawn from the same source as one another. The National Forest System subtotal is the one that carries weight here. The Draft EIS reports that the 2001 Roadless Rule applies to approximately 44.7 million acres of National Forest System lands (pp. 9, 11, 21). The 36.7-million-acre figure is the only quantity in this document that lets a reader set the designated wilderness estate on National Forest System lands against that roadless estate — and this section invites exactly that comparison when it states that inventoried roadless areas "provide popular, appropriate alternatives to wilderness areas because, although they contain many attributes similar to wilderness, a wider range of recreation opportunities with fewer restrictions is available." A comparison offered to the public in the effects chapter cannot rest on a denominator the document declines to source. I request a factual correction under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v): that the Final EIS identify the source and effective date of both figures, and conform them to a current, identified national wilderness inventory as of the date of the Final EIS, giving the current figures wherever they differ from 111.9 million and 36.7 million acres. Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(3), the Final EIS should cite where that correction is accounted for. I raise this as a discrete correction and join no other request to it. If the agency's position is that no source can be identified for either figure, it should say so expressly and state the basis on which the figures were derived, so that the record shows what the Final EIS's description of the wilderness estate rests on. The accuracy and provenance of a baseline quantity presented in the effects chapter is information that meaningfully informs the consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts and compliance with applicable law within the meaning of 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53), and the disclosure at issue is required by 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency may not present as established fact a figure its own record does not support. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).