Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-403487

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 15, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis Table 1 omits quantified costs for invasive species establishment and treatment despite acknowledging in the DEIS that such costs would likely increase, creating a gap in the reasoned comparison of alternatives required by Executive Order 13563.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands”
- “I frequently visit Sam's Knob near my home in Asheville, NC”
- “I hike the backcountry trails”
- “value the pristine wildlife habitat”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Omission of Invasive-Species Establishment and Treatment Cost from the Quantified Cost Column”
- “Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002)”
- “Executive Order 12866 and requires OMB review”
- “does not permit a reasoned comparison of alternatives”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas”
- “Protecting these unfragmented landscapes”
- “risk of invasive species and habitat fragmentation”
- “maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas”

What it names

Law cited: 284 F.3d 1062 Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 13563

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit Sam’s Knob near my home in Asheville, NC. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I hike the backcountry trails and I value the pristine wildlife habitat. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, Esther Hales Omission of Invasive-Species Establishment and Treatment Cost from the Quantified Cost Column of Cost Benefit Analysis Table 1 The Comparison of Alternatives table states that “Forest Service data indicates less than one percent of the affected environment has mapped invasive plant populations,” and that where activities increase under alternatives 2 and 3, “they could potentially increase the extent or the number of invasive plant species, especially if they create ground disturbance” (DEIS p. 32). The invasive plant species effects discussion repeats that conclusion (DEIS p. 116) and adds the agency’s own cost finding for alternative 2: “there would also likely be an increased cost associated with detecting and treating new invasive plant populations.” Neither passage projects an acreage, a spread rate, or a dollar figure for any alternative. The only acreage given is the existing 270,787 acres of invasive plants within the alternative 3 affected area, which is a baseline, not an effect. This is not a general objection to qualitative analysis. Table 1 of the Cost Benefit Analysis (p. 5) monetizes the benefit side of this rule at $9.9 to $22.0 million per year in timber benefit to society, and it monetizes two cost categories: lost recreation benefits at -$6.1 million and forgone passive use values at -$5.3 to -$11.5 million. Invasive-species establishment and treatment appears nowhere in that table, although the Cost Benefit Analysis states at p. 27 that road construction “contributes to soil erosion, sedimentation, risk of invasive species and habitat fragmentation,” and although the DEIS states that detection and treatment costs would likely rise. The agency has identified the effect, identified the cost, and then left it out of the only table in which costs are quantified. The stated reason for qualitative treatment does not reach this category. The Cost Benefit Analysis explains that “the rulemaking would not compel, require, or authorize any site-specific activities” and that “it is difficult to predict quantitative changes in costs or benefits” (p. 20). But lost recreation benefits and forgone passive use values are equally non-site-specific, and the agency monetized both across the same acreage on the same programmatic assumptions. Whatever method supported those two lines is available for this one. If it is not, the analysis should state why this category alone is different. Deferral to project-level analysis does not answer this either. The rescission itself fixes the acreage in which the prohibitions on road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest no longer apply; the exposure follows from that rule-level determination, not from any later project decision. In Kern v. Bureau of Land Management, 284 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002), a programmatic EIS was held inadequate for deferring analysis of the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease to the site-specific stage where the programmatic decision governed the exposure. The invasive plant species discussion here rests on “future project design features and management requirements to mitigate invasives species introduction and spread” (DEIS p. 116) without disclosing what those measures are, what they cost, or what residual spread they leave after mitigation. The quantification direction is one the agency invoked itself. The Cost Benefit Analysis records at p. 4 that this rule was determined significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and requires OMB review, and that Executive Order 13563 “emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, maximizing net benefits.” A regulatory analysis prepared under those orders that monetizes the benefit side and two selected cost categories, while omitting a cost the agency’s own effects analysis says will rise, gives no reasoned basis for the omission and does not permit a reasoned comparison of alternatives.