Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-589634

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 20/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is unsupported by its own findings, specifically citing deficiencies in the analysis of drinking water impacts, wildfire ignition risks, economic costs to small entities, and incomplete tribal consultation, while requesting the adoption of the No Action alternative.

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, Alternative, 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
- “Arizona is currently in a water crisis due to decreased Colorado River flows”
- “intact national forests that ensure clean water supply and aquifer recharge are essential”
- “Drinking water impacts are unanalyzed”
- “quantifies no effect of new roads, harvest, or leasable mineral development on sediment, turbidity, or treatment costs”
Governance Policy Process
- “The preamble's own findings do not support the stated purpose and need”
- “Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm (1983), the agency must show a rational connection”
- “Tribal consultation is incomplete”
- “Proceeding first is inconsistent with E.O. 13175 and the federal trust responsibility”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “Economic costs are understated and fall on small entities”
- “USDA estimates $6.1 million per year in lost recreation benefits”
- “Outfitters, guides, and tourism operators are largely small businesses”
- “New roads would also add to a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “using public lands for recreation”
- “Arizona National Scenic Trail crosses both”
- “USDA should analyze the rescission's effects on these watersheds and on recreation along the trail”
- “closures, noise, user conflicts, and trade-offs for tourism”

What it names

National Forests: Coronado National Forest
Roadless areas: Santa Rita
Law cited: 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)E.O. 13175

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge USDA to withdraw it and adopt the No Action alternative. The preamble's own findings do not support the stated purpose and need, and the record fails to analyze costs the agency itself acknowledges. I live in Arizona and Vermont, and have seen firsthand the ecological and economic benefits of the rule. In addition to using public lands for recreation, these lands protect our nation's heritage, and natural resources we will rely on into the future. As Arizona is currently in a water crisis due to decreased Colorado River flows, intact national forests that ensure clean water supply and aquifer recharge are essential--and any change to this rule can be read as disrespect for the citizens of that state. Near Tucson, where I live, the The Upper Rincon and Santa Rita IRAs on the Coronado National Forest protect sky island headwaters above the Tucson basin, and the Arizona National Scenic Trail crosses both. USDA should analyze the rescission's effects on these watersheds and on recreation along the trail. The agency's findings undercut its rationale. USDA justifies rescission by citing wildfire, insects, and forest health (91 FR 53828), yet concedes management opportunities would be "modest and localized" (53829). Projected timber gains assume harvest across all 4.8 million operable acres, which USDA calls "unlikely" (53829). Speculative benefits cannot rationally justify removing protections from tens of millions of acres. Under Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm (1983), the agency must show a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. It has not. Drinking water impacts are unanalyzed. The preamble acknowledges roadless areas at high risk of intense fire that threatens "drinking water sources" (53829) and records Tribal concern for water quality (53832), but quantifies no effect of new roads, harvest, or leasable mineral development on sediment, turbidity, or treatment costs for downstream utilities. USDA should identify affected public water systems by watershed and quantify these effects before any final action. USDA admits the rule will raise human-caused ignition risk. The preamble states greater public access "can increase human-caused ignition potential" (53829). The fire benefit it cites, fuel treatment in the wildland-urban interface, involves 9.8 million acres, about 24 percent of affected areas (53829), and the 2001 Rule already permits cutting small-diameter timber to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects (36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)). A narrower alternative exists: clarify that exception for WUI fuels work while keeping protections elsewhere. USDA must explain why it rejected that option. Economic costs are understated and fall on small entities. USDA estimates $6.1 million per year in lost recreation benefits, plus closures, noise, user conflicts, and trade-offs for tourism (53829-30), and says impacts could exceed $100 million (53830). Outfitters, guides, and tourism operators are largely small businesses, yet USDA certifies no significant impact on small entities (53831). That certification conflicts with its own findings. New roads would also add to a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog (53829) that the analysis does not cost out. Wildlife and subsistence analysis is incomplete. The preamble lists threatened and endangered species and plant and animal diversity among the values at stake (53828), notes possible long-term effects on commercial fisheries (53830), and defers ANILCA Section 810 subsistence hearings to a later notice (53830). Finalizing before that analysis is complete would be premature. Tribal consultation is incomplete. USDA concedes the rescission has substantial direct effects on Tribes, that most Tribes consulted oppose it, and that only 29 of 64 requested consultations have been held (53831-32). The final Tribal impact statement will appear only with the final rule. Proceeding first is inconsistent with E.O. 13175 and the federal trust responsibility. Reliance interests must be weighed. USDA invites comment on reliance interests (53830). Under DHS v. Regents (2020), an agency changing course must consider them. Water utilities, recreation businesses, Tribes, and communities have relied on these protections for 25 years. I request you withdraw the proposed rule and adopt No Action. The USDA justifications for changing this rule are contradicted within its own documents. This increases new fire risk, decreases water quality, and disproportionately affects the economies of smaller towns and rural America. This cannot be justified and cannot go through.