Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-226471

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted August 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately account for the long-term economic loss to New Hampshire’s recreation sector and the permanent damage to its high-quality 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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Topics

  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “Protection of Watersheds and Drinking Water”
    • “safeguard the headwaters of major rivers”
    • “degrade water quality”
    • “threaten municipal water supplies”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “Support for the Outdoor Recreation Economy”
    • “economy relies heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation”
    • “diminish the wilderness experience”
    • “economic loss to New Hampshire's recreation sector”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Wildlife Habitat and Climate Resilience”
    • “critical habitats for native species”
    • “brook trout, American marten, and migratory birds”
    • “large, unfragmented blocks of forest”
  • Climate Carbon Storage
    • “essential for climate resilience”
    • “allowing species to migrate and adapt”
    • “acting as vital carbon sinks”

What it names

National Forests
White Mountain National Forest

The comment

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

Melissa Dillier 650 N Main St Bristol, NH 03222 Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination 201 14th Street SW, Mailstop 1108 Washington, DC 20250-1124 Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule Docket Number: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Dear Director, As a resident of New Hampshire, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Our state’s roadless areas, particularly within the White Mountain National Forest, provide irreplaceable ecological, recreational, and economic value that must remain protected from commercial logging and road construction. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections for New Hampshire for the following reasons: 1. Protection of Watersheds and Drinking Water: Roadless areas act as natural filtration systems. In New Hampshire, these pristine landscapes safeguard the headwaters of major rivers that supply clean, reliable drinking water to thousands of local residents and downstream communities. Building roads and introducing commercial logging would increase erosion, degrade water quality, and threaten municipal water supplies. 2. Support for the Outdoor Recreation Economy: New Hampshire’s economy relies heavily on tourism, outdoor recreation, and the fall foliage season. Visitors flock to our backcountry areas for hiking, camping, fishing, and wildlife viewing because they offer a rare sense of solitude and untouched natural beauty. Fragmenting these landscapes with roads would severely diminish the wilderness experience that drives our local tourism economy. 3. Wildlife Habitat and Climate Resilience: The continuous forest canopies in New Hampshire’s roadless sections serve as critical habitats for native species, including brook trout, American marten, and migratory birds. These large, unfragmented blocks of forest are also essential for climate resilience, allowing species to migrate and adapt to changing conditions while acting as vital carbon sinks. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately account for the long-term economic loss to New Hampshire’s recreation sector and the permanent damage to our high-quality watersheds. Thank you for considering the perspective of New Hampshire residents. I strongly urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Melissa Dillier

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