Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-604630

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Posted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 3 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored as the letter — The shared letter of a family, scored once for everyone who sent it.

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
    • “backpacked in the Nantahala National Forest”
    • “hiked in the Cherokee and Uwharrie National Forests”
    • “beauty and recreational value of these lands”
    • “drive 1-3 hours to natural lands”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “minimization of habitat fragmentation”
    • “do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting”
    • “fish thrive in roadless areas”
    • “preserve their value”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “originally implemented for economic reasons”
    • “backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large”
    • “current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars”
    • “does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large”

What it names

National Forests
George Washington National ForestNantahala National Forest

The comment

I am in opposition to the removal of the Roadless Rule. I am a resident of North Carolina and I cherish our National Forest lands. I have hiked and camped in the Nantahala National Forest, the George Washington National Forest, and Uwharrie National Forest. I plan to continue doing so. I live in Siler City and being able to drive 1-3 hours to natural lands is part of what makes me love North Carolina. I am also a strong believer in conserving the nature and wildlife, both animals and plants, that thrive within our national forests and do not wish to see their habitats diminished. The beauty and recreational value of these lands is in part due to the minimization of habitat fragmentation that the Roadless Rule allows. I do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting. When I researched the roadless rule I found that it was originally implemented for economic reasons. The backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large that it did not make sense to build more roads. That reason is still valid today. The current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars. As a taxpayer, it does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless