Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-234690

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted August 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the nationwide rescission is disproportionate to the agency's own marginal benefit estimates, fails to account for the lack of stand-replacing fire regimes in the Northeast, contains internal contradictions regarding road maintenance costs and acreage figures, and ignores documented historical agency conduct and majority Tribal opposition, thereby documenting specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis for the White Mountain National Forest.

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

Governance Policy Process
- “The agency's own analysis defeats its stated purpose”
- “The local-decisionmaking premise fails without local staff”
- “The petition pathway converts a national trust into a patchwork”
- “Explain why a nationwide rescission is the proportionate remedy”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “The wildfire and insect rationale does not apply to the Northeast”
- “The White Mountain National Forest does not carry a stand-replacing fire regime”
- “Reconcile the road maintenance figures”
- “Adding road mileage to a system the agency cannot maintain is not management”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “twenty-five years of recreation economies”
- “$3.9 billion outdoor recreation economy”
- “annual lost recreation benefit nationally”
- “imposing the full road footprint”
Tribal Sovereignty
- “USDA also determined that E.O. 13175 consultation was warranted”
- “documented majority Tribal opposition”
- “Finalizing over that record demands explanation”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: Carr Mountain
Law cited: 5 U.S.C. 553 E.O. 13175
Works cited: Johnston et al. 2023

The comment

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

I oppose this rescission and support the No Action alternative. I am a New Hampshire resident. The agency must respond to each of the following in the record: 1. The agency's own analysis defeats its stated purpose. USDA estimates rescission would expand active management on roughly 4.8 million acres — 16 percent of forested acreage in affected inventoried roadless areas — and concedes harvest there is unlikely given budgets, operability, and market conditions. An action justified by management necessity that the agency itself expects to be modest, localized, and largely unexercised is not justified by management necessity. Explain why a nationwide rescission is the proportionate remedy for a benefit the agency describes as marginal. 2. The wildfire and insect rationale does not apply to the Northeast, and the rule is nationwide. The White Mountain National Forest does not carry a stand-replacing fire regime. Rescission delivers essentially none of the claimed benefit in New Hampshire while imposing the full road footprint. If the need is regionally specific, justify why the remedy is not. 3. Reconcile the road maintenance figures. The proposal cites a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog for roads and bridges. Commenters have documented $10.8 billion across 370,000 miles, a majority attributable to deteriorated roads causing sedimentation and fish passage barriers. Adding road mileage to a system the agency cannot maintain is not management. State the correct figure and explain how new construction is funded against it. 4. Reconcile the New Hampshire acreage. The record variously describes 235,000 and more than 265,000 acres of inventoried roadless area in the White Mountain National Forest. Publish the controlling number and its basis. 5. The agency has already demonstrated what it does with this discretion. Roadless acreage identified in the 2005 White Mountain Forest Plan fell outside the 2001 rule, and the Forest Service asserted it owed those lands no comparable protection, then proposed logging in them — including South Carr Mountain, Mill Brook, and Kanc 7. This is documented agency conduct, not speculation. Address it directly. 6. The local-decisionmaking premise fails without local staff. The entire rationale rests on forest supervisors exercising informed place-based judgment. Forest Service staffing has been reduced. Provide the staffing levels assumed by this proposal and the analysis supporting them. 7. The petition pathway converts a national trust into a patchwork. The proposal invites petitions under 5 U.S.C. 553(e), with Idaho and Colorado as precedent. National Forest System lands are held for all citizens, not for whichever party petitions hardest. Explain how the agency will prevent fragmentation of a national standard into state-by-state exemption. 8. Reliance interests and Tribal consultation. The proposal solicits comment on reliance interests; twenty-five years of recreation economies, conservation easements, and land use decisions built on this rule are such interests, and the agency must weigh them, not merely note them. USDA also determined that E.O. 13175 consultation was warranted here and then documented majority Tribal opposition. Finalizing over that record demands explanation. In New Hampshire the trade is a $3.9 billion outdoor recreation economy against a $1.4 billion forest products industry, and the agency's own estimate of $6.1 million in annual lost recreation benefit nationally. Retain the rule. Adam Davidson Derry, New Hampshire