Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-300359

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 1, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The agency should explain, specifically and on the record, how it evaluated the aquifer recharge function of the Ocala roadless acres and what mitigation, if any, it believes adequate for karst terrain.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “Floridan Aquifer”
    • “direct contamination pathway to the drinking water supply”
    • “karst hydrology has no tolerance for the sediment and contamination”
    • “739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “Florida scrub-jay, found nowhere else on the planet”
    • “Red-cockaded woodpeckers recovered here from 7 breeding pairs to 98 family groups”
    • “longleaf pine stands they need have never been fragmented by roads”
    • “Rescission puts all of that at risk”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “expands a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
    • “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
    • “ignition data in its own DEIS”
    • “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”

What it names

National Forests
Dixie National ForestKaibab National ForestOcala National ForestPrescott National Forest
Roadless areas
Black CanyonCoconino Rim

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledge

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The roadless areas I am commenting on span Arizona, Utah, and Florida, and the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would affect every one of them. I want the record to reflect what is at stake in each place and why the supporting analysis does not hold up. The Ocala National Forest in Florida sits directly on top of the Floridan Aquifer. Alexander Springs, a first-magnitude spring in the heart of the forest, pumps 80 million gallons of crystal-clear water per day through karst limestone that makes any road construction a direct contamination pathway to the drinking water supply of central Florida. The roadless areas of the Ocala total 4,855 acres, and the species that depend on them include the Florida scrub-jay, found nowhere else on the planet, the Florida black bear, the red-cockaded woodpecker, the gopher tortoise, and the eastern indigo snake. Red-cockaded woodpeckers recovered here from 7 breeding pairs to 98 family groups because the longleaf pine stands they need have never been fragmented by roads. Rescission puts all of that at risk for a state whose karst hydrology has no tolerance for the sediment and contamination that road-building brings. The agency should explain, specifically and on the record, how it evaluated the aquifer recharge function of the Ocala roadless acres and what mitigation, if any, it believes adequate for karst terrain. Arizona holds 78 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,174,256 acres, including the Coconino Rim in the Kaibab National Forest and Black Canyon in the Prescott National Forest. Across the Southwestern region, which includes Arizona, 739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but the agency's own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The agency must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain why it is departing from its own prior findings. The economic case for rescission does not survive contact with the agency's own numbers. The record states: "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." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range does not establish a net benefit. The proposal also expands a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency should explain, with specificity, how an action whose own analysis cannot confirm a positive net value justifies that expansion. The proposal certifies no significant impact on small entities while simultaneously naming outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected businesses in the DEIS and booking lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year in the Cost Benefit Analysis. The supporting 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 assessing the guides and outfitters actually holding permits in the affected areas, and it concedes some of those firms may lose those receipts. That is not a serious analysis of small-business impact. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the specific small entities operating in or adjacent to the affected roadless areas, Fishhook in the Dixie National Forest among them, rather than averaging the harm away across the national sector. Finally, 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. This comment is such an interest. The rule has been in place long enough that planning, investment, and permitting decisions have been made in reliance on it. The agency invited these interests into the record and then provided no mechanism for weighing them. I ask that it actually identify and assess the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Katherine Piehl Phoenix, AZ

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless