Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-269155

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 18/24Owed an answerPosted August 25, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS for the Roadless Rule rescission is legally deficient because it relies on pre-Hurricane Helene data, omits municipal water treatment costs and road maintenance backlogs, contradicts regional wildfire science, and fails to conduct required Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations for the Spruce-Fir Moss Spider and Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel.

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

A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence, Legal.

Standard dismissals it defeats

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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.

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.
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.
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.

Topics

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “fails to take the "hard look" required by NEPA”
- “violation of the Administrative Procedure Act”
- “Endangered Species Act requires formal Section 7 consultation”
- “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo”
Water Quality Quantity
- “French Broad River Basin supplies drinking water”
- “surge sediment loading”
- “shifting filtration costs onto local ratepayers”
- “water treatment cost increases”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “roads are a wildfire delivery mechanism”
- “human-caused ignitions... expand with road access”
- “predictive modeling and methodology used to conclude new roads will not increase wildfire risks”
- “contradicts regional science”
Wildlife Habitat
- “canopy fragmentation”
- “federally endangered Spruce-Fir Moss Spider”
- “Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel”
- “alter high-elevation microclimates”

What it names

Roadless areas: Craggy MountainHarper Creek
Law cited: 463 U.S. 29

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal

Subject: Technical Comment on Evidentiary Deficiencies: Roadless Rule Proposed Rescission (91 FR 35421; Docket FS-2025-0001) I am a Buncombe County, NC resident who was significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene and who regularly hikes in and around the Pisgah Mountains and Bent Creek Experimental Forest. As such, I am deeply concerned about the inevitable damages to my community, region and beyond that would be caused by a rescission of the Roadless Rule. The below is a detailed update to my initial comment posted yesterday, August 20th, 2026. I formally demand that the U.S. Forest Service select the "No Action" alternative and withdraw the proposal to rescind roadless protections. The August 20, 2026, DEIS fails to take the "hard look" required by NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321). Proceeding on this record would be arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). The following deficiencies must be resolved before a Final EIS is published: 1. Outdated Post-Disaster Baseline: The DEIS violates 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15 by relying on pre-disaster data. Nearly two years after Tropical Storm Helene, the slopes of Craggy Mountain, Big Ivy, and Harper Creek are structurally altered by severe landslides and geologically unstable. Proposing timber roads on failing slopes ignores active local conditions and contradicts the agency's 2023 Revised Land Management Plan for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. The Forest Service must pause this process and coordinate with the North Carolina Geological Survey to map post-Helene landslide risks before acting further. 2. Omission of Municipal Infrastructure Costs: Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts no longer grant deference to unsupported agency assumptions; the burden of proof belongs to the Forest Service. The French Broad River Basin supplies drinking water to 100,000+ Asheville area residents. Roads and logging on storm-damaged slopes will surge sediment loading, shifting filtration costs onto local ratepayers. This omission also violates Goal 2 of the agency’s 2026–2030 Climate Adaptation Plan. The agency must consult the Asheville Water Resources Department and disclose a quantified estimate of water treatment cost increases imposed on ratepayers. 3. Unaddressed Road Maintenance Backlogs: Under the State Farm precedent (463 U.S. 29), an agency decision that ignores a central part of the problem cannot stand. The Forest Service carries a multi-billion-dollar road maintenance backlog. The USFS must place into the record the exact dollar backlog for the Grandfather Ranger District and the Appalachian Ranger District office in Mars Hill, explaining how building new roads is defensible when it cannot fund the upkeep of failing roads outside its own district office. 4. Wildfire Rationale Contradicts Regional Science: In humid, high-rainfall forests of Western North Carolina, roads are a wildfire delivery mechanism, not a firebreak. Decades of data show human-caused ignitions (vehicle sparks, equipment, unattended campfires) expand with road access into backcountry. The Forest Service must disclose the predictive modeling and methodology used to conclude new roads will not increase wildfire risks to communities like Asheville. 5. Skipped Endangered Species Consultation: Road construction and canopy fragmentation will alter high-elevation microclimates critical to the federally endangered Spruce-Fir Moss Spider and Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel. The Endangered Species Act requires formal Section 7 consultation before an action proceeds. The Forest Service must halt this rulemaking until Section 7 consultation with the USFWS is completed. Data Quality Act Request: Pursuant to the Data Quality Act, I formally request that the Forest Service release the raw GIS datasets and predictive software used for the DEIS. If the agency lacks localized, post-Helene geological and hydrological data for the Pisgah-Nantahala, it must disclose that gap rather than proceed as though it does not exist. The DEIS was built on a baseline that no longer exists. Until the Forest Service accounts for post-Helene ground conditions, water filtration impacts, its maintenance backlog, regional fire science, and its ESA obligations, the only defensible choice is the "No Action" alternative.