Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov
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
A0 none: Counted, not answered.
Still open to the agency
Alternative already eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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.
Deferred to a later decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
Dear Secretary and Chief:
I'm a student at Boston University who loves our forests, and my future depends on the policies that the Forest Service adopts today.
I have lived in so many places, from England to the Pacific Northwest to New England today, and no place makes me so proud to call home. When I first moved to Boston, hiking in New Hampshire helped me connect with new friends, become more aware of the environment around me, and find a passion for trail running, hiking, and cycling.
The Department is asked to conclude, on the basis of this and similar comments, that the aggregate public interest in roadless conservation outweighs the commercial interests that drive the rescission proposal.
Regarding the Waterville in the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire:
Intact roadless landscapes support functional soils, hydrology, and food webs that fragmented forests cannot replicate.
Fragmentation reduces biodiversity and ecosystem function together. A synthesis of habitat fragmentation studies spanning multiple biomes and 35 years found that fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent and impairs core ecosystem functions including biomass production, nutrient cycling, and carbon storage. Effects are strongest in the smallest and most isolated fragments and intensify with time (Haddad et al. 2015). — Nick M. Haddad, Lars A. Brudvig, Jean Clobert, Kendi F. Davies, Andrew Gonzalez, Robert D. Holt, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Joseph O. Sexton, Mike P. Austin, Cathy D. Collins, William M. Cook, Ellen I. Damschen, Robert M. Ewers, Bryan L. Foster, Clinton N. Jenkins, Andrew J. King, William F. Laurance, Douglas J. Levey, Chris R. Margules, Brett A. Melbourne, A. O. Nicholls, John L. Orrock, Dan-Xia Song, John R. Townshend, 2015 · Science Advances (https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052)
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Waterville, White Mountain National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary.
Roadless areas are absolutely critical to the incredible biodiversity of the New England region, and the United States as a whole. Not only do they provide invaluable habitats for endangered species, but they also prevent the intrusion of invasive plants into the area, which would be introduced by roads fragmenting these ecosystems. They protect recreation throughout our national forests by reducing air and noise pollution, and making these places precious and safe. Roads through White Mountain National Forest would also contaminate water, release carbon into the atmosphere at a time when we are experiencing the hottest summer on record, and harm endangered species of fish, mammals, and migratory birds that call New England home. The Roadless Rule protects all of us who live in and love these places.
The Department should not rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Gratefully,
CommentID: RLC-20260827-DMWGC8