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 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.
“natural beauty truly must be seen to be believed”
“Degrading these landscapes with clear-cuts and industrial roads”
“irreplaceable public asset”
What it names
Roadless areas
Cheoah BaldSouth Mills River
The comment
I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Although I live out of state my family has deep roots in western North Carolina, where my father-in-law grew up in Avery County. I and my husband plan to retire there in a few years.
Western North Carolina is a deeply treasured place for my entire family. We have a house in Avery County and return as often as possible to experience a landscape whose natural beauty truly must be seen to be believed. Desiring these 150,000 beautiful acres is a repugnant idea because places like this are what makes America truly unique. My fear though is that those currently in power care only about money and not beauty, so let's talk about the severe economic detriments that will follow if this proposal prevails. Framed as an economic opportunity for timber extraction, removing roadless protections is actually a profoundly poor financial decision for the region’s rural communities. Opening these backcountry areas to commercial logging and road building threatens the primary drivers of Western North Carolina's modern economy.
The Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Economy: Tourism is the financial lifeblood of rural Western North Carolina, generating billions of dollars annually. Visitors travel from across the globe specifically for the pristine, undisturbed backcountry experience found in areas like Cheoah Bald, the South Mills River watershed, and the Black Mountains. Degrading these landscapes with clear-cuts and industrial roads would ruin the region's appeal, threatening thousands of small businesses, guides, hospitality workers, and local tax revenues.
The Craft Beverage Industry: Western North Carolina is home to a world-renowned craft brewing and beverage cluster that relies entirely on clean, pure, unpolluted water. The Pisgah and Nantahala national forests act as natural filtration systems for municipal water supplies. Constructing logging roads through steep, erosion-prone mountain terrain will cause heavy sedimentation in local watersheds, drastically increasing water treatment costs for local municipalities and threatening the precise water quality that local breweries depend on.
Property Values and Regional Talent Attraction: The stunning natural beauty of the Appalachian Mountains drives residential growth and attracts entrepreneurs, retirees, and remote workers to rural counties. This influx supports local real estate markets, construction industries, and professional services. Transforming protected backcountry into active timber extraction zones lowers adjacent property values and reduces the regional appeal that draws long-term economic investment.
The Burden of Infrastructure Maintenance: Building and maintaining industrial logging roads in rugged mountain terrain is incredibly expensive. Long after timber companies harvest the resources and leave, the financial burden of managing eroded, failing infrastructure often falls back on public funds and local forestry budgets, draining resources away from critical community needs.Industrial logging in these rare roadless areas treats a irreplaceable public asset as a short-term commodity.
The long-term economic value of keeping these forests intact—for clean water, tourism, and community resilience—vastly outweighs the temporary financial gain of a few timber contracts. I strongly urge you to protect Western North Carolina’s rural economies by maintaining the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety
Sincerely,
Jesse Christensen