Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-291363

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted August 31, 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

Water Quality Quantity
- “critical for clean drinking water”
- “Threaten our water supply”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “critical for... biodiversity”
- “irreversible ecological damage”
- “decimate Wild Life”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “local tourism”
- “beloved landmarks like Laurel Mountain, South Mills River, Cheoah Bald, and the Black Mountains”

What it names

Roadless areas: Cheoah BaldLaurel MountainSouth Mills River

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

Own letter

The comment

"I am a resident/supporter of Western North Carolina and I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please select the 'No Action' alternative and retain the rule. North Carolina's 172,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas—including areas of Pisgah & Nantahala Forests, and beloved landmarks like Laurel Mountain, South Mills River, Cheoah Bald, and the Black Mountains—are critical for clean drinking water, local tourism, and biodiversity. Opening these Pisgah and Nantahala wild forest spaces to commercial timber harvesting and road building will cause irreversible ecological damage, Threaten our water supply, and will decimate Wild Life, bringing our Black Bears even more so into our neighborhoods. Keep the Roadless Rule intact." Helene has already done enough damage for 100 years. No Roads & No Logging please.