Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-565079

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS materially misquotes the 2020 Alaska FEIS regarding fish habitat protections by omitting specific restrictions on T77 watersheds and Conservation Priority Areas, thereby failing to satisfy the NEPA hard-look requirement and 7 CFR 1b.7(f) citation standards.

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
- “dread of not knowing if it was safe to eat what we caught in the Neuse River”
- “deregulation does to our rivers”
- “fish habitat finding”
- “riparian management strategy”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “DEIS Materially Alters the 2020 Alaska FEIS Fish Habitat Finding”
- “Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v) the agency must make factual corrections”
- “does not satisfy the hard-look requirement”
- “Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Service”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “blatant exploitation of our resources”
- “effort required to protect and conserve”
- “reckless destruction”
- “lack of old-growth harvest or associated road construction”

What it names

National Forests: Croatan National Forest
Roadless areas: Catfish Lake North
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 placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

My name is William Barnes. I am writing to oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule. I grew up in and around New Bern, North Carolina, just north of the Catfish Lake North Roadless Area in Croatan National Forest. My family worked fields in the spring, summer, and fall, and depended on hunting and fishing throughout the year. I've seen first-hand what deregulation does to our rivers. I remember the dread of not knowing if it was safe to eat what we caught in the Neuse River. I do not want to see this blatant exploitation of our resources continue until there's nothing left. A measured, iterative timeline of changes that would align our regulations with any challenges introduced by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be considered, but we have seen time and time again that the government is willing to do the easy work of destroying, but will not apply the effort required to protect and conserve. So here we are again facing reckless destruction on the whims of out of touch bureaucrats wearing a cheap veneer of good intent. In NC, we are still suffering from the absolute mess of 'reforming' mental health care before anything was in place to protect the people that needed support. My youngest brother is among those who have been unable to receive the help he needs in part because of that. So do not try to sell me on tearing everything apart with only a statement of good intent in exchange. This administration's efforts to destroy data collection laws to help obscure facts and further protect abusers from accountability also damages any confidence I held in the findings and arguments used to justify changes like this and you have proven time and again that you are incapable of writing responsible policy. As an example: DEIS Materially Alters the 2020 Alaska FEIS Fish Habitat Finding It Relies On (pp. 243, 318) The DEIS materially alters the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule FEIS fish habitat finding it relies on, and the alteration removes the grounds most affected by this rulemaking. At page 318, in Appendix 4 (Review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule), 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 cited page is accurate as a locator, and the 2020 FEIS is listed in the DEIS's own references and publicly available. The problem is that page 3-138 does not say what the DEIS reports. The finding 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." The source is in the record and the page cite is right; the defect is that the DEIS reports the source as saying something it does not say. Under 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(v) the agency must make factual corrections, and under 1b.7(f)(3) it should cite where in the EIS or the supporting record the correction is accounted for. This is a rule-level question about what the DEIS says a source in its own record says, and about whether a conclusion premised on deleted protections can be carried forward. It is not answerable by deferral to site-specific analysis: no project-level NEPA document corrects the DEIS's restatement of its own source, and no project-level analysis can supply the programmatic conclusion that removing the T77 and Conservation Priority Area restrictions leaves fish-habitat effects "minimal." A conclusion stated without the record support it claims does not satisfy the 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). I re-state, for posterity and to be as clear as possible, that I oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule.