Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603752

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 10/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the draft EIS relied on an outdated definition of 'substantive' comments, resulting in an undercount of compliance comments that affected the range of alternatives analyzed, and requests specific corrections to Appendix 3 and the final EIS to reflect the operative regulatory definition and counting rules.

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
- “comment-screening process that used a definition of 'substantive' that is no longer in effect”
- “Re-screen the NOI comment record and the comments on this draft EIS against the operative definition”
- “Disclose, with the reported figures, the counting rules that produced them”
- “this concern is addressed to the final rule preamble as well as to the final EIS appendix”
Wildlife Habitat
- “Roads kill wildlife”
- “They degrade water quality and habitat”
- “Repeal of the Roadless Rule is a terrible idea”
Water Quality Quantity
- “They degrade water quality and habitat”
- “Roads kill wildlife”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Over 80 percent of wildfires nationwide are human-caused”
- “Repeal of the Roadless Rule is a terrible idea”

What it names

Law cited: 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53)

The comment

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

Despite a short comment period, over 625,000 people submitted letters of signed petitions, with the vast majority opposed to rescission of the Roadless Rule. The draft EIS reports public-participation figures derived from a comment-screening process that used a definition of “substantive” that is no longer in effect. Under the definition now in effect, a compliance comment is substantive on its face, with no showing of impacts required. This must be corrected. Because the draft EIS states that comments received “were used to inform the range of alternatives and environmental impact analyses,” a screen that undercounted compliance comments carried forward into the range of alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS. The Forest Service needs to: 1. Correct Appendix 3, footnote 72, and the statement at p. 9 and footnote 1 to state the definition of “substantive” at 7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53), as amended effective April 3, 2026, including the compliance limb, and identify which version governed the screening of each comment record; 2. Re-screen the NOI comment record and the comments on this draft EIS against the operative definition, and disclose in the final EIS the number of comments that are substantive under it but were not substantive under the interim-rule definition, together with any resulting changes to the themes, concerns, and recommendations reported in Appendix 3 and to the range of alternatives those comments informed; and 3. Disclose, with the reported figures, the counting rules that produced them — how a “comment letter” was distinguished from a “submission,” how petition signatures were attributed, and the criteria by which a letter was classified as “generally opposed” or “generally in support” — so that the 99 percent / 1 percent characterization rests on a stated and reviewable basis. Because the reported comment figures and the screening standard behind them bear on the agency’s explanation of its change in position, this concern is addressed to the final rule preamble as well as to the final EIS appendix. Roads kill wildlife. They degrade water quality and habitat. Over 80 percent of wildfires nationwide are human-caused. Repeal of the Roadless Rule is a terrible idea.