Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608070

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 10/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposed rescission lacks a specific funding source for new roads, relies on a Cost Benefit Analysis with excluded costs and unverified arithmetic that was not placed on the docket, and fails to identify specific enforceable forest plan provisions equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 to protect municipal watersheds.

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

Economic Impact Fiscal
- “fiscal contradiction at the heart of this proposal”
- “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”
- “selling out public rights for private gain”
Water Quality Quantity
- “24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas”
- “direct threat to the public water supply”
- “Roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “identify, forest by forest, which specific plan provisions are equivalent... for municipal watersheds”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “New roads disrupt habitats and degrade our national treasures”
- “fix the roads that are already there before making new ones”
- “less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired”
- “degrade our national treasures”
Governance Policy Process
- “This document was published in an agency file folder, not on the docket”
- “withdraw the no-impact certification”
- “place the Cost Benefit Analysis on the docket”
- “The agency should... assess the effects on the specific small entities”

What it names

Law cited: 36 CFR 294.12
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 gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Public lands belong to the public. That is the principle I bring to this comment, and it is the lens through which I read every page of this proposed rescission. The agency's own numbers expose a fiscal contradiction at the heart of this proposal. "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 DEIS acknowledges that road mileage, deferred maintenance costs and management costs are all likely to increase if the rescission moves forward. My position is simple: fix the roads that are already there before making new ones. New roads disrupt habitats and degrade our national treasures, and the agency has not explained how it would pay for any of them. I ask that the agency name the specific funding source for any new road construction and maintenance this rule would enable, and state in concrete terms what the projected change in the deferred maintenance backlog would be. The cost-benefit picture is no cleaner. The analysis the agency relies on 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 loss of $92 million to a gain of $199 million. A rule whose own economics span that interval has not demonstrated a benefit; it has demonstrated uncertainty. Compounding the problem, the cost column excludes road construction at $80,000 to $100,000 per mile, and roughly $500,000 per mile in Alaska, as well as maintenance and fuel treatment costs that appear elsewhere in the same document. The upper bound assumes maximum potential harvest the analysis itself calls uncertain. This document was published in an agency file folder, not on the docket, and the claim that impacts could exceed $100 million appears without supporting arithmetic anywhere in the record. I ask that the agency place the Cost Benefit Analysis on the docket, restate the net present value with its own quantified road and fuels costs included in the cost column, and show the arithmetic behind the $100 million threshold. This is yet another blatant act of selling out public rights for private gain, and nowhere is that clearer than in how the agency treats the businesses that depend on these lands. "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 supporting flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading a $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 affected areas. The analysis itself concedes some of those firms may lose these receipts. That concession and that certification cannot coexist. The agency should withdraw the no-impact certification and assess the effects on the specific small entities operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. The drinking water question deserves the same honesty. "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." That low impairment rate reflects the protection these areas have had. Roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, by the agency's own data. Opening these watersheds to road construction is a direct threat to the public water supply, and the DEIS does nothing more than gesture toward forest plans as a substitute safeguard, without identifying a single enforceable provision in any of them. The agency must identify, forest by forest, which specific plan provisions are equivalent in force to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. A general assurance is not an answer. Sincerely, Jon Conway Reno, Nevada