Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 7, 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.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the US force services proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless rule in North Carolina. Resending these federal protections places 172,000 acres of pristine inventoried Roadless areas within the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest at intermediate risk of commercial logging, industrial development, and habitat–fragmenting road construction. These backcountry areas–including critical watershed's and iconic landscapes like the Linville Gorge, Laurel Mountain, in the South Mills River–are invaluable to the state of North Carolina for several critical reasons:
1. Watershed protection and climate resilience: These 172,000 acres act as a vital, natural filtration system that supplies clean drinking water to 100s of thousands of residence across Western North Carolina. Maintaining intact, on fragmented forest floors is her best natural defense against catastrophic soil erosion and severe downstream flooding, which increasingly threatened Iron Mountain communities.
2. Economic impact on tourism and recreation: Western North Carolina is multi billion dollar outdoor recreation economy relies directly on the wild, uninterrupted nature of these public lands. Opening these backcountry areas to do industrial use will currently degrade the world–class hiking, fly–fishing, and climbing experiences that draw visitors from around the globe and support local businesses.
3. The replaceable bio diversity: The Western North Carolina National Forest Harbor unique, ecosystem's and endangered wildlife species that cannot survive the disruption brought by heavy machinery and road corridors.
Relying solely on local, shifting force management plans does not offer the permanent, I am glad security that the 2001 Roadless rule provides.
I urged that he was forced service in the Department of agriculture to reject this rollback and maintain the full, existing federal protections for North Carolina's back country.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this.
Mark Hofmann, MD
Asheville, North Carolina