Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 18, 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 the U.S. Forest Service:
I am writing because I strongly oppose any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user of our inventoried roadless areas, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit Craggy Mountain, Laurel Mountain, and several other roadless areas in Pisgah National Forest, since I live in Asheville. It is deeply personal and important to me to protect these untouched and undeveloped lands because I grew up hiking these when I was a child and still a tourist from out of state, and now for the past 12 years, I have been able to raise my own family by taking them out to these forests and mountain trails that are still pristine like when I was a kid. These backcountry trails and spaces also attract a lot of tourists still, which is vital to Buncombe County's economy, especially after Helene hit our tourism economy so hard. Our mountains and forests need care and protection, not destruction and logging. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the USDA to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas.