Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-589791

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts the agency's own findings regarding wildfire ignition risks on roaded lands, fails to reconcile the economic cost-benefit analysis which shows potential net losses, and ignores prior judicial holdings (Tenth Circuit) and historical context (Weeks Act) supporting the rule's validity and necessity for protecting specific watersheds and wildlife habitats in the White Mountains.

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
- “serve as headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco”
- “supplying drinking water to communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts”
- “286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Opening roads into those drainages increases ignition risk”
Wildlife Habitat
- “Wildlife and the natural spaces they depend on have been pushed and pushed already”
- “Moose, black bear, American marten, Bicknell's thrush, brook trout, Canada lynx, and the northern long-eared bat all inhabit the White Mountain roadless areas”
- “Their habitat does not respect state lines”
- “preserve them for nature”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “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”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- “shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA”
- “explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified”
- “The agency must explain the legal basis for any position contrary to the Tenth Circuit's holding”
- “state-by-state substitution before, and it failed in court”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: White MountainWild River
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The White Mountains are sacred. I cannot think of another word for them. I do not get there as often as I would like, but roadless areas in the White Mountain National Forest are places I hold as genuinely irreplaceable. Wildlife and the natural spaces they depend on have been pushed and pushed already. They have more value left as they are than anything else that can be imagined. These lands belong to the people of this country, those of the past, present, and future. The people of the past and the people of the present have paid for these lands with their tax dollars to preserve them for nature, and for those in the future who will continue preserving them. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule works against that obligation, and I ask the agency to answer the following points in the record before proceeding. The proposal invokes wildfire and fuels management as part of its rationale. The agency's own findings directly contradict that reasoning: "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 White Mountain's 16 inventoried roadless areas total 240,669 acres and serve as headwaters for rivers flowing to the Connecticut, the Merrimack, and the Saco, supplying drinking water to communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Opening roads into those drainages increases ignition risk by the agency's own measure. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which shows far higher fire density on roaded land than inside affected roadless areas. The economic justification for rescission does not hold up against the agency's own numbers. The 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." New Hampshire alone holds 15 inventoried roadless areas totaling 234,681 acres, and across the Eastern region, which includes New Hampshire, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The recreational and watershed values at stake in places like the Pemigewasset and Wild River are not marginal. I ask that the agency 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, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog constitutes sound management when the agency's own analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The proposal argues that state-specific approaches can substitute for a national rule. The agency's own record notes that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency tried that state-by-state substitution before, and it failed in court. Moose, black bear, American marten, Bicknell's thrush, brook trout, Canada lynx, and the northern long-eared bat all inhabit the White Mountain roadless areas. Their habitat does not respect state lines, and neither do the watersheds these areas protect. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making incrementally erodes nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time a state-by-state approach was attempted. Finally, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule was within the agency's statutory authority. That question was already answered. The Tenth Circuit 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 court found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The Weeks Act of 1911 itself was passed specifically because of what happened when New England's mountains were clearcut. The White Mountains are what they are because of federal protection, not despite it. The agency must explain the legal basis for any position contrary to the Tenth Circuit's holding before this rescission proceeds further. Sincerely, John Minkle Malden, MA 02148