Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-335181

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 8, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts its own DEIS findings on wildfire risk, fails to adequately analyze impacts on bird communities in the White Mountains, and improperly applies regulatory flexibility analysis by using national averages instead of local data.

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
- “headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco”
- “drinking water for communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts”
- “runoff they generate, the fill, the culverts, the bridges”
Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “Bicknell's thrush is a verified species of the White Mountain”
- “carry more trash and invasive species than the roadless stretches nearby”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “ignition data reported in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “contradicts the wildfire rationale it offers for rescission”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments”
- “The rule as written states it 'generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions'”
- “The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches a no-significant-impact conclusion by spreading the estimated annual expenditure loss”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: White Mountain
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Living minutes from the White Mountain National Forest, and walking in it daily, I have watched the difference between roaded and roadless land long enough to know it in my feet. The Rob Brook and Bartlett Experimental Forest areas, both crossed by wide logging roads, are hotter, noisier, and carry more trash and invasive species than the roadless stretches nearby. The storm damage there is worse too, and I suspect it is the roads themselves, the runoff they generate, the fill, the culverts, the bridges, that explain that difference. I am filing this comment to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) because what I see daily in these woods is exactly what the agency's own analysis predicts. The White Mountain's 16 inventoried roadless areas total 240,669 acres and are the headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco, drinking water for communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the federal purchase of private land for national forests specifically because of what happened when New England's mountains were clearcut. Rescinding a rule that protects what remains of that recovery requires better justification than this proposal offers. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement contradicts the wildfire rationale it offers for rescission. The DEIS 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." The proposal nonetheless proceeds on the premise that removing the roadless rule serves forest health. I ask that the agency explain why it departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile that departure with the ignition data reported in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The thrush I listen for in the White Mountains, what I call the Cathedral birds, the ones whose sound creates a tangible peace, are harder to find than they were. They need mature forest. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. Bicknell's thrush is a verified species of the White Mountain. The proposal does not address what additional road access would do to species already receding into the quieter interior. What specific analysis has the agency done on the bird communities of the White Mountain roadless areas, and where does it appear in the record? On administrative burden, the agency has not shown that the rule itself is the obstacle. The rule as written states it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." I ask that the agency identify, specifically and quantifiably, which burdens are not already addressed by those exceptions, including the provisions for public health and safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection. The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches a no-significant-impact conclusion by spreading the estimated annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators actually holding permits in the affected areas. The DEIS names those operators as affected parties, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The agency should withdraw the small-business certification and assess the impact on the firms actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not a national average. Finally, The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. A person who lives adjacent to these roadless areas and has organized daily life around what they provide has relied on the rule's protections. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it can lawfully change course. Sincerely, Carol Felice 16 Ash Lane Madison, NH 03849