Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-540959

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding wildfire ignition data (DEIS Table 21), bird abundance impacts, and the net negative results of the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis, while asserting that the 2001 Rule remains valid under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act based on Tenth Circuit precedent.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “observe shy birds like warblers, ovenbirds, and other deep forest species”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “verified species of the White Mountain include Bicknell's thrush, American marten, Canada lynx”
- “Opening roadless areas to new construction would alter the habitat conditions”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “where I hike and camp regularly”
- “one of only a few pristine forests left in New England”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “connection to nature”
Water Quality Quantity
- “more runoff destroying the creeks and streams”
- “They protect our water, our air, our soil”
- “brook trout”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: Sandwich RangeWhite Mountain
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291
Works cited: Kroeger et al. 2022

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the full or partial rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and submit the following points for the record. The White Mountains of New Hampshire are where I hike and camp regularly, and where I go in summer to observe shy birds like warblers, ovenbirds, and other deep forest species. The Sandwich Range, a 16,797-acre inventoried roadless area in White Mountain National Forest, is part of a landscape that is already seeing more and more traffic each year as tourists come to see my state's natural beauty. These are one of only a few pristine forests left in New England. Carving them up with more roads will bring more litter, more vehicles polluting the air, more runoff destroying the creeks and streams, would be a devastating loss to our state’s culture, history, and health. Public lands are an investment in our future. They protect our water, our air, our soil, and our connection to nature. They are a responsibility to be treasured and cared for, not plundered to line the pockets of the wealthy. The birds and wildlife I go to observe in the White Mountains depend on interior forest conditions that roads directly degrade. The DEIS cites the 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. (source: DEIS; Kroeger et al. 2022; McClure et al. 2013; Ware et al.) The verified species of the White Mountain include Bicknell's thrush, American marten, Canada lynx, the northern long-eared bat, moose, black bear, and brook trout. Opening roadless areas to new construction would alter the habitat conditions on which all of these species depend. I ask that the agency explain how the proposal accounts for these documented effects on bird abundance and species avoidance inside the affected roadless areas. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, but the agency's own record 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case for rescission is even worse. The agency's own record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency must reconcile the proposal with its own Cost Benefit Analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The fact that the Trump administration has already wasted countless billions of taxpayer dollars compounds that failure. The agency must explain how an action whose own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The proposal argues that the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's statutory authority, but the courts that reviewed that question held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency must address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness, and explain the basis for any contrary position. Once again, I firmly opposed to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and demand that the agency answer to the very clear demands of the American people to leave the rule unchanged. Sincerely, J. K. Nashua, NH