Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-597407

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the commenter resides in Western North Carolina and works in the outdoor recreation industry, specifically identifying the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests as the affected areas where the rescission of the Roadless Rule would impact local wildlife, water quality, and recreation access.

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
- “crucial for wildlife”
- “Habitat destruction would be devastating to these species”
- “endangered Eastern Hellbender, migratory birds like the Bald Eagle, native brook trout”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “rock climber and work in the outdoor recreation industry”
- “grew up hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing on these lands”
- “Access to public lands is a longstanding American tradition”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “preservation of our forests”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “increase taxpayer burden”
- “$6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog”
- “building more roads in forests will only increase the maintenance backlog”

What it names

National Forests: Nantahala National Forest Pisgah National Forest
Works cited: 10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Western North Carolina, where my family has called home since the late 1700s. I am also a rock climber and work in the outdoor recreation industry. As a result, I am deeply tied to this land and committed to the preservation of our forests. These undeveloped areas of the Nantahala National Forest and Pisgah National Forest are crucial for wildlife, clean water, recreation, and old-growth forests, which help foster ecological resilience. Southern Appalachia is home to a diverse mix of native plants and animals. Habitat destruction would be devastating to these species, including the endangered Eastern Hellbender, migratory birds like the Bald Eagle, native brook trout, and many more. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open up these protected lands and habitats to commercial logging, which also increases fire hazard. Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Rescinding the roadless rule would also increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system currently has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service is underfunded and short-staffed, and building more roads in forests will only increase the maintenance backlog. Additionally, I grew up hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing on these lands with my dad and Grandaddy, and cannot accurately describe how much they mean to my Appalachian family and me. These undeveloped areas allow us to exercise our God-given right to connect with nature and appreciate the wilderness he made for us. Access to public lands is a longstanding American tradition, and protecting them is essential so future generations can continue to recreate on them responsibly. Lastly, rescinding the Roadless Rule ignores the will of the American public. When the Clinton Administration first proposed the Roadless Rule back in 2000, it received over a million public comments supporting the rule, more than any administrative proposal in US history at the time. When the Trump Administration initially proposed rescinding the Roadless Rule last September, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments urging that the Roadless Rule be retained. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a terrible mistake and unfair to the American people and our native wildlife species. I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support “Alternative 1", the No Action alternative.