Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-608666

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “natural beauty of the wild spaces”
    • “billions of dollars to the state”
    • “humans who recreate in these wild spaces”
    • “tourism dollars these wild places attract”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “health of the wild plants and animals”
    • “negatively impact the local wildlife”
    • “fragmenting their habitat and disrupting migration routes”
    • “endangered”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “soil erosion which then washes down into nearby streams and rivers”
    • “degrades the water quality”
    • “clean drinking water”
    • “increases the risk of flooding”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “Forest Service's own studies show that most wildfires are the result of human activity”
    • “wildfires are much more likely to occur near roads than in roadless areas”
    • “roads are needed for logging and mining equipment, not to fight wildfires”

What it names

National Forests
White Mountain National Forest
Roadless areas
Sandwich RangeWhite Mountain

The comment

I grew up in New Hampshire and a big part of why I chose to live here as an adult is the natural beauty of the wild spaces throughout the state. Some of my fondest memories are from time spent in areas which would be impacted by the rescission of the Roadless Rule. Areas including Mount Chocorua in the Sandwich Range Mountains, Lincoln Woods Trail off the Kancamagus Highway, the Appalachian Trail on Mount Moosilauke, and Liberty Springs Trail from Franconia Notch State Park. If the Roadless Rule is repealed, over 200,000 acres of roadless areas in the White Mountain National Forest of New Hampshire will be impacted. People come from all over the world to visit these special places, which brings billions of dollars to the state. We, in NH, treasure these wild spaces, and feel it is our duty to protect them for future generations to enjoy. One administration, favoring profit over conservation, should not be allowed to disregard the overwhelming public support of the Roadless Rule. I urge the administration to keep the Roadless Rule for the health of the environment, the health of the wild plants and animals that call these places home, for the humans who recreate in these wild spaces, and for local economies that depend on the tourism dollars these wild places attract. The Trump administration is claiming that the roads are needed for wildfire management. But the Forest Service’s own studies show that most wildfires are the result of human activity and that wildfires are much more likely to occur near roads than in roadless areas. Building roads through wild areas leads to soil erosion which then washes down into nearby streams and rivers and negatively impacts the aquatic wildlife, changes the water flow which increases the risk of flooding, and degrades the water quality which impacts all those downstream who depend on clean drinking water. The roads will negatively impact the local wildlife, some of which are endangered, by fragmenting their habitat and disrupting migration routes. These roadless areas are already managed by the Forest Service without the need for roads. The roads are needed for logging and mining equipment, not to fight wildfires. Let’s not trade a short-term profit for a precious gift which should be preserved for future generations to enjoy. We, as American citizens, collectively own these public lands. Listen to us! We want to preserve these wild spaces. Do not rescind the Roadless Rule!

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