Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-381377

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 14, 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

Wildlife Habitat
- “Roads will destroy the habitats of the wildlife”
- “protect critical wildlife habitat”
- “We share these spaces with owls, with bears, with countless insects”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “cherish the time I am able to spend walking the trails”
- “serenity of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail is restorative”
- “escape the noise and pollution of our city roads”
Water Quality Quantity
- “forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions”
- “Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “with climate change threatening our planet”
- “safeguard our wild places from the risk of wildfires”
- “Opening our forests to roads and logging won't help”

What it names

Roadless areas: Wilderness Study Area

The comment

I have lived in Weaverville, NC for 15 years. I cherish the time I am able to spend walking the trails of Craggy Gardens and the Craggy Wilderness Study Area. The serenity of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail is restorative and soothing. I seek out these places to escape the noise and pollution of our city roads. Putting roads through these pristine places will destroy them forever. Roads will destroy the habitats of the wildlife that call these areas home. We share these spaces with owls, with bears, with countless insects, and countless species, the very diversity of which makes our live and environment viable. Especially now, with climate change threatening our planet, we need to safeguard our wild places from the risk of wildfires. Opening our forests to roads and logging won't help. This may, in fact, make it worse. Please -- don't do this. The damage will be immeasurable and irreversible. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.