Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted August 24, 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.
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes to the Roadless Rule. As a North Carolina native who lives near the Pisgah National Forest, I spend a significant amount of my time hunting, fishing, and backpacking on our public lands. I am directly invested in the preservation of the 58.5 million acres of undeveloped National Forest lands currently protected under this rule.
Rolling back protections to allow logging and road construction would have a devastating, on-the-ground impact on the local ecosystems and the outdoor recreation economy. From my experience in the backcountry, I know that road construction and clear-cutting fragment critical wildlife habitats, which directly degrades the quality of local hunting. Furthermore, soil erosion and runoff from new logging roads choke local watersheds and trout streams, permanently damaging the pristine fishing conditions I and others rely on. Finally, as a backpacker, the primary value of these lands lies in their unbroken, undeveloped character; introducing heavy machinery and infrastructure would destroy the remote wilderness experience along with the tourism dollars our recovering region desperately needs.
The costs of losing these irreplaceable landscapes far outweigh the short-term benefits of industrial development. I urge the agency to reject any rollbacks, exemptions, or changes to the Roadless Rule. Please maintain the rule in its entirety to protect our intact ecosystems, clean watersheds, and our outdoor heritage.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bollinger
Marshall, NC 28753