Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-295136

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft EIS's Purpose and Need statement is legally deficient under NEPA because it narrowly frames the need for rescission in a way that forecloses meaningful analysis of intermediate alternatives, and it fails to disclose or weigh the ecological and watershed values protected by the 2001 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, 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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “wildlife and fisheries habitat”
- “imperiled species and ecosystems”
- “57% of wildlife species of conservation concern have suitable habitat”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “concerned with NEPA adequacy”
- “narrowly drawn purpose and need statement that forecloses meaningful alternative analysis”
- “violates NEPA's core mandate”
Water Quality Quantity
- “critical to water and watershed protection”
- “protect watersheds supplying drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “world-class recreation”
- “allowing impacts to these lands would be devastating”

What it names

National Forests: San Juan National Forest
Law cited: 120 F.3d 664 490 U.S. 332 490 U.S. 332

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidence

I have 17 years of land management experience with the US Forest Service and 21 years with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I understand first-hand how these lands are critical to water and watershed protection, wildlife and fisheries habitat, reduced risk of wildfires, and world-class recreation. I live adjacent to the San Juan National Forest in southwest CO, and allowing impacts to these lands would be devastating. A study done in Colorado supports all my concerns. I include it here as part of my comments. https://roadless.org/resources/colorado-wildlands-report.pdf Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (the Rule) threatens all of these benefits and gives control of these roadless public lands to greedy extractive industries and administration cronies. Road construction is not one threat — it is the enabling condition for most of the major threats that imperiled species and ecosystems face on National Forest lands. The Inventoried Roadless Areas exist in their current ecological condition because roads were never built. Rescinding the Roadless Rule activates a cascade of harm documented by NatureServe, the IUCN, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. I am also concerned with NEPA adequacy concerning this proposal, including the cumulative-effects analysis, range of alternatives, and other procedural requirements that a Draft EIS must satisfy. I will highlight my concern with a narrowly drawn purpose and need statement that forecloses meaningful alternative analysis. The Purpose and Need statement frames the rescission's justification exclusively around the Department's stated belief that "increased management flexibility in the administration of these lands is needed to better meet the multiple-use mission" (Purpose and Need for Action, pp. 18-19), without articulating any criteria against which intermediate alternatives—short of full nationwide rescission—could be meaningfully measured. This framing risks predetermining the outcome by defining the need in terms that only wholesale rescission can satisfy, foreclosing genuine consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives as NEPA requires under 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). As the Seventh Circuit recognized in the persuasive, out-of-circuit decision Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 1997), a narrowly drawn purpose and need statement that forecloses a reasonable range of alternatives violates NEPA's core mandate. I ask the agency to broaden its purpose and need framing with articulable criteria that permit genuine evaluation of intermediate management-flexibility options. The Purpose and Need section frames rescission almost entirely around administrative flexibility while giving only passing acknowledgment to the 2001 Rule's protective function. The DEIS itself states that the 2001 Rule was "intended to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas," then pivots directly to the assertion that "increased management flexibility... is needed to better meet the multiple-use mission" (Purpose and Need for Action, pp. 18-19), without weighing that flexibility against the ecological values the Rule was designed to protect. Independent research found that 57% of wildlife species of conservation concern have suitable habitat in inventoried roadless areas, and that these areas often protect watersheds supplying drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people. The document does not address whether the agency considered this evidence or why it was rejected. NEPA requires forthright disclosure of trade-offs under Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) and 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). I request a revised, balanced Purpose and Need section addressing these values. I implore you to stop this action of rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Nancy McGarigal Dolores, CO