Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-274603

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 27, 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
- “Hiking the Appalachian Trail”
- “sitting up at Craggy Mountain”
- “walking through Linville Gorge”
- “destroy the quiet trails”
Water Quality Quantity
- “ruin creeks”
- “drinking water”
Wildlife Habitat
- “hurt the wildlife”
- “Leave our forests wild”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “money grab”
- “timber companies just wanting to make a profit”
- “letting private companies use our public land to make money”

What it names

Roadless areas: Cheoah BaldCraggy MountainTusquitee Bald

The comment

I am completely against this. It really feels like a money grab—timber companies just wanting to make a profit off land that belongs to all of us. I spent a lot of my time out there. Hiking the Appalachian Trail, sitting up at Craggy Mountain, walking through Linville Gorge. That land is where I go to get away. If they build roads into areas like Cheoah Bald and Tusquitee Bald, it will ruin creeks and drinking water, hurt the wildlife, and destroy the quiet trails that people travel from all over to see. They are trying to sell this as wildfire prevention, but I really believe it's just about letting private companies use our public land to make money. Please do not open these areas up. Leave our forests wild and keep the Roadless Rule.