Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-515124

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 29, 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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “playing, hiking, camping, backpacking in National Forests”
- “hiked nearly every mile of the Citico Creek Wilderness”
- “public lands are the heart of our public lands”
- “natural inheritance we leave for our children”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “cutting across sensitive habitat”
- “harming wildlife”
- “protects some of the wildest forests we have left”
- “protect critical wildlife habitat”
Public Opinion Support
- “The public does not support rescinding the Roadless Rule”
- “over 600,000 people submitting comments... in support of keeping the rule”
- “American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected”
Water Quality Quantity
- “causing erosion”
- “drinking water for millions”
- “protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water”

What it names

National Forests: Cherokee National Forest

The comment

I love our public lands. Our family has spent countless days playing, hiking, camping, backpacking in National Forests across the country. We raised four boys who love this country and its natural landscapes. We personally visit the Cherokee National Forest frequently as that is only 1-2 hours away from our home. We have hiked nearly every mile of the Citico Creek Wilderness and other areas within the Cherokee Nat'l Forest and feel that is a true jewel. There are enough forest roads already. The number of roads is more than the NFS can keep up with as it is now. Adding more roadways, cutting across sensitive habitat, causing erosion, harming wildlife, are serious concerns. The public does not support rescinding the Roadless Rule. The public are the ones who are intimately tied to these public lands. I desperately want the government to keep their hands off our lands (purchased and maintained by taxpayers, after all)! Me and my family do NOT support rescinding the Roadless Rule. 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.