Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-529910

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis projects net recreation losses and fails to reconcile the $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog with the proposed expansion, while the regulatory flexibility analysis incorrectly certifies no small business impact by using national averages instead of assessing specific local outfitters and guides, and the proposal fails to weigh the reliance interests of commenters as solicited in the Federal Register notice.

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

Economic Impact Fiscal
- “Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue... while projecting recreation losses”
- “net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “road system... already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies that expansion”
Governance Policy Process
- “The rule itself contradicts this”
- “Exceptions for public health and safety... are already built into the structure”
- “identify on the record which specific burdens are not already addressed”
- “agency must withdraw the small-business certification”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I go to the forests of this state to enjoy the nature there”
- “photographing them in that setting is one of my favorite things”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Minnesota's 62,081 roadless acres sit within watersheds”
- “include 286 municipal water intakes”
- “communities and businesses drawing from those watersheds”

What it names

Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests of Minnesota are worth more than any road that could be cut through them. That is not sentiment. It is a fact the agency's own numbers support, and I am filing this comment to make the agency defend its proposal against those numbers. Minnesota holds 16 inventoried roadless areas totaling 62,081 acres. I go to the forests of this state to enjoy the nature there. I take my dogs out into those places, and photographing them in that setting is one of my favorite things. One of theirs too. The diverse wildlife I encounter in those forests has a value beyond money, and yet, as I will show, it also brings in more than it costs. That makes the proposed rescission hard to justify on any ground, economic or otherwise. The agency's own record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Those figures describe the ceiling of what rescission could gain. Against them, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of somewhere between $5.2 and $11.4 million a year, while projecting recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million. The road system the agency proposes to expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with these figures and explain, with specificity, how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies that expansion. The proposal also claims that the current rule creates permitting and administrative burdens that rescission would relieve. The rule itself contradicts this. It "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Exceptions for public health and safety, for existing mineral leases, and for community wildfire protection are already built into the structure being dismantled. I ask that the agency identify on the record which specific burdens are not already addressed by these existing exceptions, and quantify them. The proposal's regulatory flexibility analysis certifies no significant impact on small businesses. That certification sits beside a Cost Benefit Analysis that names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected parties and books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading that loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than looking at the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. Minnesota's 62,081 roadless acres sit within watersheds that also include 286 municipal water intakes across the Eastern region, according to the DEIS. The communities and businesses drawing from those watersheds, and the guides and outfitters working in or near these areas, are not a national average. The agency must withdraw the small-business certification and assess the impact on the specific entities operating in and around the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. I have organized my time outdoors, my choices about where to take my dogs, and my expectations for those forests around the protections this rule has provided. An agency changing course is required to account for the reliance its prior policy created. I ask that the agency identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including mine, before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Stacey Anthony Fargo, ND 58103