Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 16, 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.
Dear US Forest Service, I'm writing you to express my strong opposition to rescinding, weakening or rolling back of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate of Roadless areas like Wilson Creek and Lost Cove in NC, and Little Wilson Creek in VA, (both near my home in Boone, NC), I recognize their importance in providing clean drinking water, intact wildlife habitat, wildfire mitigation and making lasting outdoor memories. Roadless areas represent the best of the best forests within the National Forest system and should be kept that way for future generations. It's also a known fact that human caused wildfire ignition is heavily concentrated near roads rather than within remote Roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule could result in more wildfires than help mitigate them. I again urge the USDA and US Forest Service to abandon any proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated Roadless Areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.
Sincerely,
Ben Lucas