Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-611075

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis and DEIS data contradict the economic justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule, specifically highlighting a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, a net present value range that includes negative values, and a flawed Regulatory Flexibility Act certification that fails to assess specific small entities in the White Mountain National Forest.

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”
- “supplying drinking water to communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts”
- “286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
Wildlife Habitat
- “moose, black bear, American marten, Bicknell's thrush, brook trout, Canada lynx, and northern long-eared bat”
- “depend on the White Mountain's roadless character”
- “wildlife that depends on undisturbed terrain”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I recreate in these forests”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “go to these forests to recreate and find peace and quiet”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit found the agency's prior attempt to replace the national rule with a state-by-state approach legally deficient”
- “Regulatory Flexibility Act certification deserves the same scrutiny”
- “agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: Carr MountainMt. Wolf - Gordon PondPemigewasset ExtSandwich RangeWhite 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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests I love, the places where I go to find peace were shaped by a crisis that Congress chose not to repeat. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the federal purchase of private land for national forests specifically because of what had already happened when New England's mountains were clearcut. The Pemigewasset Ext, Sandwich Range, Waterville, Mt. Wolf - Gordon Pond, Jobildunk, and Carr Mountain roadless areas in the White Mountain National Forest exist, in part, because that lesson was taken seriously. 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, supplying drinking water to communities across New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Across the Eastern region, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. I recreate in these forests, and I am opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own record undermines the economic case for this action. The agency stated 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." Against that baseline, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis 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 agency must reconcile this proposal with those numbers and explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. That question deserves a direct answer in this record. The state-by-state rationale the agency advances now has already been tested. The record reflects 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." What the record does not reflect is any honest accounting of what followed: the Ninth Circuit found the agency's prior attempt to replace the national rule with a state-by-state approach legally deficient. New Hampshire holds 234,681 acres in 15 inventoried roadless areas. The moose, black bear, American marten, Bicknell's thrush, brook trout, Canada lynx, and northern long-eared bat that depend on the White Mountain's roadless character do not recognize state lines, and neither do the watersheds. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency walked this path. The permitting and administrative burden justification fares no better when the rule's actual text is consulted. The rule, as written, "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)." Those exceptions also address existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection. The agency has not identified, with specificity, which burdens remain after those exceptions are applied. I ask that the agency name the particular burdens not already addressed by the rule's existing exceptions and quantify them. The Regulatory Flexibility Act certification deserves the same scrutiny. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by distributing the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in these areas, and it concedes some firms may lose those receipts. The people who run small guiding operations in and around the Carr Mountain and Sandwich Range roadless areas are not a national average. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an honest assessment of the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected areas, not a statistical abstraction built to avoid the finding the data supports. I go to these forests to recreate and find peace and quiet. The history encoded in the Weeks Act, the water those acres protect, and the wildlife that depends on undisturbed terrain all argue against rescission. So does the agency's own analysis. Sincerely, Jackie Dean Thornton, NH