Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-248297

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Destruction of Solitude and the Wilderness Experience”
- “Concentration and Magnification of Overuse”
- “intense recreational pressure is already straining the forest's ecosystems”
- “primitive, non-motorized recreation”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Degradation of Watersheds and Soils”
- “damages the fragile alpine and sub-alpine watersheds”
- “provide clean drinking water to communities across New England”
- “severe soil compaction and accelerated erosion”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “Irreversible Loss of Wild Character”
- “accelerating the loss of our remaining wild spaces”
- “protect these remaining untouched pockets as a baseline of natural beauty”
- “destroy the very qualities that make these lands irreplaceable”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest

The comment

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN: 0596-AD66 Subject: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Eliminating these protections will cause irreversible harm to the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) by accelerating the loss of our remaining wild spaces and exacerbating severe overuse. The WMNF is already one of the most heavily visited public lands in the United States, drawing millions of outdoor enthusiasts annually. This intense recreational pressure is already straining the forest's ecosystems. Removing the Roadless Rule to allow road construction, motorized trails, and resource extraction will destroy the very qualities that make these lands irreplaceable. I urge the Forest Service to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule for the WMNF to address the following critical threats: Destruction of Solitude and the Wilderness Experience: Roadless areas provide a rare, vanishing opportunity for primitive, non-motorized recreation. Allowing roads and motorized vehicles into these sanctuaries destroys the quiet and solitude that visitors seek, fundamentally altering the character of the backcountry. Concentration and Magnification of Overuse: Opening up wild spaces with new roads does not alleviate pressure; it introduces vehicular crowds, trash, and trail erosion into areas that lack the infrastructure to handle them. This degrades the land and strains overextended trail maintenance budgets. Irreversible Loss of Wild Character: Once a road is cut into a pristine forest, that land's wild character is permanently lost. The Forest Service must protect these remaining untouched pockets as a baseline of natural beauty and quiet in an increasingly developed Northeast. Degradation of Watersheds and Soils: Heavy traffic and new road surfaces lead to severe soil compaction and accelerated erosion. This directly damages the fragile alpine and sub-alpine watersheds that provide clean drinking water to communities across New England. Our public lands are already facing historic levels of crowds and wear. The solution to overcrowding is not to pave and develop our last wild refuges, but to fiercely protect them. Please withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely,[ Karen K. Frazier Sullivan, NH 03445