Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-274858

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted August 27, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule fails to account for non-use values in its impact analysis and requests the retention of roadless protections for specific areas in Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    • “hiked and camped many times in Linville Gorge”
    • “travel to the Pisgah area several times a year specifically because it's still wild”
    • “The roadless character is the main draw for me”
    • “I will visit less”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “supply drinking water to surrounding communities”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “represent some of the last unroaded forest left in the state”
    • “Once they're developed, that's not something that comes back”
    • “knowing this land stays undeveloped”

What it names

National Forests
Nantahala National Forest
Roadless areas
Craggy Mountain

The comment

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

Re: RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket FS-2025-0001 — Proposed Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule I'm a North Carolina resident, and I've hiked and camped many times in Linville Gorge. I travel to the Pisgah area several times a year specifically because it's still wild. The roadless character is the main draw for me. I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule as it applies to Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest, including Linville Gorge, Craggy Mountain, and the Black Mountains. The proposal's own impact analysis estimates a $6.1 million annual loss in recreation value, but that figure seems to only count on-site use. It doesn't account for what a lot of people value even more: just knowing this land stays undeveloped. Speaking for myself, if roads and logging come into places like Linville Gorge, I will visit less. It's how I already decide where to go, and know I'm not alone in that. I'm asking USDA to keep the roadless protections in place for the inventoried roadless areas of Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest. These areas are heavily used, supply drinking water to surrounding communities, and represent some of the last unroaded forest left in the state. Once they're developed, that's not something that comes back. Thanks

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