Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-285494

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted August 29, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission lacks a region-specific finding for the low-fire-risk forests of the Northeast and requests that the agency either withdraw the rescission for the White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests or formally analyze a New England-specific alternative in the final EIS, consistent with the state-specific approaches adopted for Idaho and Colorado.

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, 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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)”
- “arbitrary and capricious”
- “Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.”
- “NEPA's requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives”
Governance Policy Process
- “regional tailoring of roadless management”
- “state-specific approach already adopted for Idaho and Colorado”
- “one-size-fits-all action”
- “formally analyze and respond to a New England-specific alternative”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire risk reduction and fuels management”
- “low-fire-risk forests of the Northeast”
- “no region-specific finding that this rationale applies”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: Sandwich RangeWild River
Law cited: 463 U.S. 29 575 F.3d 999

The comment

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

I submit this comment in opposition to the proposed rescission as applied to the White Mountain National Forest (NH/ME, ~368,000 acres of inventoried roadless area, including the Kilkenny, Pemigewasset, Sandwich Range, and Wild River units) and the Green Mountain National Forest (VT, ~80,000 acres of roadless land outside designated wilderness). I am a civilian without a legal background but here is what I understand to be true: Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), an agency rule is arbitrary and capricious where the agency fails to examine relevant data, offers an explanation that runs counter to the evidence before it, or fails to consider an important aspect of the problem. USDA’s stated rationale for this rescission is centered on wildfire risk reduction and fuels management, yet the agency has provided no region-specific finding that this rationale applies to the low-fire-risk forests of the Northeast. A single national rationale applied without differentiation to ecologically and climatically distinct regions is precisely the kind of unreasoned, one-size-fits-all action the arbitrary-and-capricious standard is designed to prevent. Notably, USDA has already demonstrated that regional tailoring of roadless management is both administratively workable and consistent with the agency’s obligations: the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008, ~9.3 million acres) and Colorado Roadless Rule (2012, ~4.2 million acres) remain in effect and are expressly excluded from this very rulemaking. The agency’s own proposal therefore establishes that a national, undifferentiated rescission is not the only reasonable course available — and under NEPA’s requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14, along with the precedent set in Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009), which USDA itself cites in this proposal, I request that the agency either withdraw the rescission as to the White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests or formally analyze and respond to a New England-specific alternative in the final EIS and rule, consistent with the state-specific approach already adopted for Idaho and Colorado. I ask that this comment, including the specific alternative requested, be entered into the administrative record and addressed in USDA’s response to comments.