Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-613474

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 17/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act certification are internally inconsistent with the proposed rescission, specifically by highlighting a net economic uncertainty, an unaddressed $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, and a failure to assess impacts on specific local small entities in Thornton, New Hampshire, rather than using national averages.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “spend most of my recreation time hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing”
- “recreation losses of at minimum $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “trails my adaptive group rides, and the campsites where we bring adaptive athletes”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “agency's economic case for rescission does not hold together”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “road maintenance backlog already sitting at $6.9 billion”
- “timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state approach”
- “legal deficiencies the court identified before”
- “regulatory flexibility certification does not survive contact”
- “rule generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “put them at risk”
- “local decision-making can chip away incrementally at roadless values”
- “open the Sandwich Range and the forests around Smarts Brook to road construction”
- “category of protection the agency's own numbers cannot justify abandoning”

What it names

National Forests: White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas: Sandwich 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 gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I live in Thornton, New Hampshire near the Welch-Dickey Trailhead. The Smarts Brook trails, the Sandwich Range and the mountains around Welch Dickey are where I spend most of my recreation time hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and downhill skiing. I volunteer year round with Waterville Valley Adaptive Sports. I coach and support athletes with disabilities, skiing, trail riding, mountain biking and camping in the White Mountain National Forest surrounding Waterville Valley. Waterville Valley Adaptive Sports conducts trail rides on the many rail trail systems throughout Northern New Hampshire. These places matter to me and to the people I bring there. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put them at risk, and the agency's own record does not support that choice. The agency's economic case for rescission does not hold together. The record before the agency 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." Against that marginal gain, 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 minimum $6.1 million a year, a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and a road maintenance backlog already sitting at $6.9 billion. The agency cannot establish that this action produces a net benefit by its own numbers. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with that analysis and explain how expanding a road system already carrying that backlog is justified when the economics are this uncertain. The agency has already walked this road and been stopped. The 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 Ninth Circuit rejected the state-by-state approach the last time the agency tried it, precisely because local decision-making can chip away incrementally at roadless values that are nationally significant. The trails where my adaptive sports group rides and camps are part of that national fabric. How does this proposal avoid the legal deficiencies the court identified before, and how does the agency answer its own prior finding that piecemeal local decisions erode values that a national rule exists to protect? The agency also argues administrative burden, but the rule as written already accommodates the things the agency says it cannot do. The record states that the rule "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)." Exceptions also exist for existing mineral leases and community wildfire protection. The agency has not identified which specific burdens fall outside those exceptions. It should do so, and it should put numbers behind that identification, because a vague claim of administrative burden is not a reason to open the Sandwich Range and the forests around Smarts Brook to road construction. The regulatory flexibility certification does not survive contact with the agency's own analysis. 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 spreading that loss across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than looking at the permit holders actually operating in the affected areas, and it concedes that some of those firms may lose these receipts. The outfitters and guides working the trails near Waterville Valley and Smarts Brook are exactly the small entities this analysis is supposed to protect. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct an honest assessment of the businesses actually holding permits in roadless areas, not a national average that obscures the real harm. I oppose this rescission. The places I hike, the trails my adaptive group rides, and the campsites where we bring adaptive athletes belong in a category of protection the agency's own numbers cannot justify abandoning. Sincerely, Diane Siegart Thornton