Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600684

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 18/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents the commenter's professional standing as an engineering geologist and resident of affected areas, cites specific data on sediment loading, water intakes, and maintenance backlogs, and requests the agency to reconcile its Cost Benefit Analysis, explain sediment impacts on water utilities, assess small entity impacts, and weigh reliance interests in the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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
- “substantial siltation of rivers”
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “struggles that water treatment plants face when treating sediment-laden water”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The economic case for rescission does not hold together”
- “initial cost is enormous and maintenance is an ongoing and costly outlay”
- “carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Governance Policy Process
- “regulatory flexibility analysis is not credible”
- “agency must identify which specific burdens are not already addressed”
- “The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings... It has held none to undo it”
- “agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “travel extensively each year... on foot, by canoe, and by paddle”
- “These roadless areas are not abstractions to me”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “local outfitters, guides and tour operators”

What it names

Roadless areas: Horse Heaven
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 I live in North Carolina, have family property near the Horse Heaven roadles area in Virginia and travel extensively each year in the western states, I spend many weeks each year moving through this country on foot, by canoe, and by paddle, buying gas, eating at local restaurants, sleeping in local lodging. These roadless areas are not abstractions to me. I am also an engineering geologist, and I have built roads into new terrain. I know what that work costs and what it leaves behind. I have seen many debris flows, some of which have killed people, that were initiated at a dirt road built in a mountainous area. I have paddled extensively in Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Virginia and North Carolina. Construction in these areas leads to substantial siltation of rivers. I see firsthand the damage done to rivers by debris flows that start at excavated and disturbed roadways. Virginia alone holds 64 inventoried roadless areas totaling 393,682 acres. Across the Southern region, which includes Virginia, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. I have also worked on water supply dams, and I see the struggles that water treatment plants face when treating sediment-laden water from construction and debris flow runoff. New roads can substantially increase the money spent on filtering and cleaning drinking water. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. I ask that the agency explain in detail how it weighed this sediment loading against the drinking water supply function these watersheds perform, and how it accounts for the cost that burden shifts onto water utilities and ratepayers. The economic case for rescission does not hold together. 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." As an engineering geologist who has been involved firsthand in building roads into new areas, I can say plainly: the initial cost is enormous and maintenance is an ongoing and costly outlay of funds. The agency is already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on a road budget of roughly $73 million a year. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with its own Cost Benefit Analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and that it explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system it cannot already maintain. The rule the agency proposes to rescind already permits what the agency claims it cannot do. The rule "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)." The proposal justifies rescission partly on permitting and administrative burden grounds. The agency must identify which specific burdens are not already addressed by those existing exceptions and quantify them with precision. The agency's regulatory flexibility analysis is not credible. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." The local outfitters, guides and tour operators who hold permits in the affected areas are not protected by spreading an aggregate loss across every small firm in the sector nationally. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, this comment is itself a reliance interest the agency invited and then failed to weigh. "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." I, like most Americans, want to leave a legacy for my child and her cousins and all their descendants. There is not much land to save, and most of this is land that is particularly difficult to develop. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. Let's leave it better than we found it for our kids. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Gary Rogers Greensboro, NC