Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-613388

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data regarding water intakes, timber volume, and fire ignition risks from the agency's own analyses, citing 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, to argue that the rescission proposal is inconsistent with the agency's prior findings and legal precedents, and requests an explanation of how the rescission protects watershed quality.

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, 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
- “Clean water is a right”
- “24 million Americans drink water that originates there”
- “direct threat to the water supply”
- “protecting the watershed quality”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire rationale does not hold up”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely”
- “ignition risk climb because roads were pushed”
- “fire density on roaded land”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “economics do not support rescission”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “$6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found deficiencies”
- “Tenth Circuit already ruled”
- “within the authority Congress granted”
- “state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule”

What it names

National Forests: Tonto National Forest
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

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 Clean water is a right. That is the frame I bring to this comment, and I will not negotiate it away. I have visited over 15 national parks across this country, including Arches, Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, and Olympic. I ride throughout the Tonto National Forest. I go looking for beautiful vistas and gorgeous mountains, and I photograph them. These places matter to me, and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is part of what keeps them worth visiting. I oppose its rescission. Start with water, because the agency's own numbers make the case. More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by roadless areas, and by the agency's analysis roughly 24 million Americans drink water that originates there. Fewer than 12 percent of those watersheds have impaired streams today. The agency itself has found that roads and their associated facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Opening roadless areas to roads is not a minor adjustment: it is a direct threat to the water supply that tens of millions of people depend on. Clean water is a right. We deserve to have access to clean water, and that is non-negotiable. I ask the agency to explain, specifically and on the record, how rescinding the rule is consistent with protecting the watershed quality its own data describes. The wildfire rationale does not hold up either. The agency claims the rescission supports fuels management, but its 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." That is not a fringe finding. It is the agency's own language. The Tonto National Forest, where I ride, sits in fire-prone country, and I have no interest in seeing ignition risk climb because roads were pushed into areas that are currently protected. The agency must reconcile this proposal with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas, and explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings. The economics do not support rescission, and the agency's own analysis makes that plain. The record shows that "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." Against that, the agency's cost-benefit analysis projects only $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, while projecting recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from -$92 million to +$199 million. An analysis that cannot establish a net benefit is not a basis for policy. And this is before accounting for the existing $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on roads already built. How does expanding a road system that cannot be maintained serve the public interest? The agency should answer that question plainly. The legal history here matters too. The agency argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule, but it already tried that and the courts rejected it. The record reflects that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The Ninth Circuit found deficiencies in that state-by-state approach the last time it was tried. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the same problems, or addressed its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. That explanation is owed. On the question of statutory authority, the Tenth Circuit already ruled. Its holding was direct: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The court found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state, plainly and with legal basis, why it believes otherwise. I oppose this rescission. Rescind the proposal, not the rule. Sincerely, AJ Flint Mesa, AZ