Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606962

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 7/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis fails to include road construction and maintenance costs in the net present value calculation, omits the arithmetic for its $100 million impact claim, and was not placed on the public docket, while also identifying deficiencies in the small business impact analysis and the exclusion of foreseeable plan amendments from the rulemaking scope.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

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.
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.
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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
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.

Topics

Economic Impact Fiscal
- “Road appropriations fell from $234 million in 2004 to $73 million in 2024”
- “deferred maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion”
- “net present value discounted at 3 percent over 15 years is estimated to be -$92 to $199 million”
- “small-business certification that accompanies this proposal cannot be squared with the analysis”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “road construction fragments habitat”
- “alters hydrology”
- “Animals die”
- “Environments that took generations to remain intact do not recover on a human timetable”
Governance Policy Process
- “The agency cannot simultaneously declare the foreseeable consequences of its own action out of scope”
- “The Cost Benefit Analysis was placed in an agency file folder rather than on the docket”
- “The agency must place that analysis on the public docket”
- “The agency should withdraw the certification and perform an assessment focused on the small entities”

What it names

Works cited: Furniss et al. 1991

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 country I grew up knowing exists because roads were never pushed through it, and that is precisely what this proposal threatens to change. The Forest Service cannot afford the roads it already has. "Road appropriations fell from $234 million in 2004 to $73 million in 2024, against a deferred maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion for roads and bridges, with supplemental funding expiring." The agency's own environmental analysis acknowledges that road mileage, deferred maintenance costs, and management costs are all likely to increase if this rule is rescinded. Pushing new roads into country that currently has none will compound a fiscal problem the agency has not solved, and the consequence is not abstract: road construction fragments habitat, alters hydrology, and opens terrain to pressures that ecosystems built around roadlessness cannot absorb. Animals die. Environments that took generations to remain intact do not recover on a human timetable. I ask that the agency identify, by name and amount, the funding source it intends to use for any new road construction and maintenance under this proposal, and state specifically how the deferred maintenance backlog is projected to change. The agency's own cost-benefit accounting does not establish that this proposal is a net benefit to the public. The Cost Benefit Analysis states that "the net present value discounted at 3 percent over 15 years is estimated to be -$92 to $199 million (-$70 to $152 million discounted at 7 percent) and uses maximum potential costs and benefits that do not account for uncertainty." That range runs from a $92 million loss to a $199 million gain, meaning the agency has not demonstrated a benefit, it has demonstrated a range wide enough to include substantial harm. The problem is made worse by what the cost column omits: road construction, which the same document prices at $80,000 to $100,000 per mile and roughly $500,000 per mile in Alaska, along with maintenance and fuel treatment costs the document itself quantifies, none of which appear to be fully included in the net present value calculation. The upper bound assumes maximum potential harvest that the analysis itself calls uncertain. The agency also claims impacts "could exceed $100 million" without showing the arithmetic that produces that figure, and every quantified annual line item in the analysis appears to be under $22 million. The Cost Benefit Analysis was placed in an agency file folder rather than on the docket. The agency must place that analysis on the public docket, restate the net present value with road construction, maintenance, and fuels costs included in the cost column, and publish the arithmetic behind the claim that impacts could exceed $100 million. The small-business certification that accompanies this proposal cannot be squared with the analysis sitting beside it. "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 regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the areas this proposal would affect. The analysis itself concedes some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. Averaging harm across the national universe of small businesses does not measure the harm falling on the specific businesses exposed to it. The agency should withdraw the certification and perform an assessment focused on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the proposed rule acknowledges that what follows from rescission is not limited to the rescission itself. "The proposed rule concedes that subsequent land management plan amendments and revisions 'could increase the area where timber harvest and road construction would be allowed,' declares changes to plans beyond the scope of the proposal, and then requests public comment on them (91 FR 53830)." The agency cannot simultaneously declare the foreseeable consequences of its own action out of scope and ask the public to comment on them. If plan amendments expanding timber harvest and road construction are a foreseeable result of rescission, they are part of this action and must be analyzed as such. The agency must treat the foreseeable plan-amendment scenario, including any expansion of timber harvest area, as within the scope of this rulemaking and subject it to full analysis before finalizing anything. Sincerely, Sara Kobus Wilmington, DE