Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-584308

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record a specific objection to the DEIS's failure to identify enforceable provisions in forest plans equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds, citing data on 24 million people and 7,000 intakes, and requests site-specific analysis of environmental consequences for ten named roadless areas in Arkansas.

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “Twenty-four million people's drinking water is asserted away”
- “The water is for all of Mankind”
- “asserting control over natural aquifers”
- “identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “Cardinal and hummingbirds and all of the Heavenly Father's wing animals are to soar high not be in a cage”
- “disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences”
- “effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow”
- “retain the 2001 rule's protections”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule”
- “ask that the agency respond to each of the issues raised in this comment”
- “analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections”
- “provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record”

What it names

National Forests: Ouachita National Forest Ozark-St. Francis National Forest
Roadless areas: Bear MountainClifty CanyonDismal CreekEast ForkGee CreekHurricane CreekLittle BlakelyPedestal RocksRichland Creek
Law cited: 36 CFR 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Heavenly Father owns everything. He spoke and said let there be light. He spoke and said let's make Mankind in my image in my likeness Male and Female he created them. He blessed them and said it is very good. We aren't Slave's to this system. The water is for all of Mankind it's not for selfish egoestic greedy politicians for capital gain. Jesus Christ is coming soon repent thy kingdom is near. Money isn't what makes the World go around. Money is fake it has no value it's a promissory note that ties you to a debt, it's an I owe you to the government that has been deciveing Mankind for over 2000 years. Cardinal and hummingbirds and all of the Heavenly Father's wing animals are to soar high not be in a cage. Ozark -St. Francis National Forests has historically been owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service but Governor Sarah Sanders has decided to designate Blanchard Springs State Park! Why you ask? Governor Sarah Sanders is doing a slight of the hand's she states that it's getting a updated face lift but what is really happening behind the sence! FROM WHITE COUNTY TO HOT SPRINGS the earthly systems are executing a coordinated push to lock our land into a global debt script. The STATE is asserting control over natural aquifers from from Blanchard Springs Caverns up north to the thermal water tables of Hot springs to lock down cooling loops for out of state tech corporations! The Apartment of Truth: Overcoming the Script In Genesis 1:31 The Heavenly Father spoke and declared that Creation is very good. In Palsm 1:48 The word records that we were all there in the beginning clapping and rejoicing as he spoke the universe into a unalterable decree. Isaiah 28.8 warns that forums of men are covered in filth,with vomit on the tables no place clean. The political parties both Republicans and Democrats are the same failing system. The Lamb Jesus Christ is the only one who can save you. Follow him stand in the Stillness and you will completely override this failing lower government. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - East Fork (13,037 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Penhook (6,566 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Little Blakely (3,342 acres), Ouachita NF, Arkansas - Clifty Canyon (1,963 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Pedestal Rocks (21,957 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Bear Mountain (1,910 acres), Ouachita NF, Arkansas - Richland Creek (571 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Hurricane Creek (2,279 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Gee Creek (7,957 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas - Dismal Creek (9,160 acres), Ozark-St. Francis NF, Arkansas I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: Twenty-four million people's drinking water is asserted away Clean water matters to me, and my own tap may trace back to this country. I do not accept assurances in place of analysis. Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired. The DEIS says forest plans address sources of public drinking water without identifying one enforceable provision. I ask that the agency identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, [The Watchman on the Wall] [Bald Knob, Arkansas]