Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-271731

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 26, 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 eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The 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 decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The 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 shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “travel and recreate often”
- “wild areas... to be havens”
- “recreation and local economies”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect clean water, wildlife habitat, intact forests”
- “habitat fragmentation”
- “loss”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect clean water”
- “erosion”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “The rule already allows necessary work involving wildfire, disease and public safety”
- “Removing these protections could increase road construction”

What it names

National Forests: Jefferson National Forest Pisgah National Forest Sumter National Forest

The comment

I live in Georgia, and travel and recreate often in North Carolina and Virginia. I find the wild areas, Pisgah National Forest, Jefferson National forest, Sumter national forest, and more, to be havens. Having served as a Chaplain in the US army I can say without a doubt that these places are spaces for our military brothers and sisters who need to have some space and move and reconnect with the army way. I cant imagine any gains that would offset the loss. I live oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please select the No Action alternative and retain the rule. Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia’s roadless areas protect clean water, wildlife habitat, intact forests, recreation and local economies. The rule already allows necessary work involving wildfire, disease and public safety. Removing these protections could increase road construction, habitat fragmentation, erosion and long-term maintenance costs. Please retain the Roadless Rule.