Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-605345

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

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. This comment stands for 3 submissions in its group. 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
    • “hiking its trails, swimming in its clear streams, camping under the stars”
    • “places that define childhood and family life”
    • “future generations of North Carolina families can continue to hike, camp, and find peace”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “degrade the pristine water quality of our mountain watersheds”
    • “new roads lead to immediate soil erosion”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “permanently scar and fragment the Pisgah”
    • “invite invasive species that displace native wildlife”
    • “wild, intact backcountry spaces are irreplaceable”

What it names

National Forests
Pisgah National Forest

The comment

I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a Western North Carolina resident, I see firsthand how vital these protected spaces are to our community and our daily lives. My own children have grown up exploring the Pisgah National Forest—hiking its trails, swimming in its clear streams, camping under the stars, and developing a deep lifelong appreciation for nature. Stripping away roadless protections would directly threaten the future of the very places that define childhood and family life for so many of us in this region. Opening these undisturbed areas to road construction and logging would permanently scar and fragment the Pisgah. Decades of research show that new roads lead to immediate soil erosion, degrade the pristine water quality of our mountain watersheds, and invite invasive species that displace native wildlife. These wild, intact backcountry spaces are irreplaceable, and once they are broken up by development, they are gone forever. Rather than reversing protections that have successfully safeguarded our public lands for a quarter-century, the Forest Service should leave the current rule fully in place. I urge the agency to reject this rollback and choose the No Action Alternative so that future generations of North Carolina families can continue to hike, camp, and find peace in a healthy, intact forest.

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