Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604070

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “harmful to wildlife who need this room to survive”
    • “vital part of our ecosystem”
    • “disrupt and be so harmful to wildlife”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “access to nature and places to explore”
    • “ruin the economy that these remote places rely on for people recreating”
    • “beyond beautiful”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “can't imagine having these places destroyed”
    • “not left as is for those that come behind us”
    • “vital part of our ecosystem”

What it names

National Forests
White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas
White Mountain

The comment

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I grew up living next to the White Mountain National Forest and consider myself so lucky to have had that access to nature and places to explore that are beyond beautiful. I can’t imagine having these places destroyed and not left as is for those that come behind us. This would disrupt and be so harmful to wildlife who need this room to survive and are a vital part of our ecosystem. It would also ruin the economy that these remote places rely on for people recreating. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a mistake. Again I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.”

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless