Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 12, 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.
My name is Lylah Russell and I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I strongly encourage the USDA/National Forest Services to not take action to undo the Roadless rule. I believe that without it we would be making the habitat for endangered species unsustainable while destroying other wildlife's homes. It would also increase the likelihood for wildfires, be very cost ineffective and people may also lose their jobs (fishers and other jobs that rely on the Roadless Rule). Personally, I have spent a lot of time in Pisgah National Forest and many of the roadless areas there, including Harpers creek, Laurel Mountain, Graveyard Ridge and many more. I live in Western North Carolina and I am a student at a school that looks out onto Mt. Pisgah and several Roadless Rule areas. It would be very unfortunate for those areas to turn into roads. I strongly advocate for the Forest Services to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule of 2001.