Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted October 7, 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.
“return management of these areas largely to individual forest management plans”
“select Alternative 1, No Action”
“stated rationale does not justify such a sweeping change”
“support passage of the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025”
What it names
Roadless areas
Green MountainWhite Mountain
The comment
Acting Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, USDA Forest Service Joshua White,Dear Joshua White, USDA Forest Service Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination, and Members of Congress:I am writing to respectfully oppose the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). I urge the Forest Service to abandon this proposal and select Alternative 1, No Action.Rescinding the Roadless Rule would remove an important nationwide layer of protection and return management of these areas largely to individual forest management plans. That would weaken protections that have been in place for more than 25 years.In the White Mountain and Green Mountain National Forests alone, the Roadless Rule protects approximately 260,000 acres—roughly one-fifth of these two national forests. These areas include some of New England’s most iconic landscapes, including the Presidential Range, Franconia Notch, Mount Moosilauke, and Mount Chocorua.The Forest Service’s stated rationale is that the 2001 Roadless Rule has become an obstacle to effective forest management. I do not find that justification persuasive. The proposed rescission would eliminate a long-standing layer of protection rather than address a demonstrated need to remove it. In my view, the stated rationale does not justify such a sweeping change to the management of these lands.Finally, I urge my members of Congress to co-sponsor and support passage of the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025, H.R. 3930 and S. 2042, which would provide lasting statutory protection for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System.Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the American people.ColemanNew Hampshire