Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-311777

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 3, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that specific roadless tracts in the Pisgah forestlands, including Wilson's Creek, Harper's Creek, and Lost Cove, provide critical contiguous habitat for federally protected and vulnerable species and support recreational values, thereby opposing the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

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
    • “irreplaceable, contiguous habitat for numerous federally protected and vulnerable species”
    • “vital to the survival of federally endangered and threatened species”
    • “directly disrupt sensitive habitats critical to species currently proposed for listing”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “value the pristine wilderness and backcountry trails”
    • “quiet, undisturbed recreational experiences I cherish”
    • “avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “clean headwaters”
    • “Road construction and industrial activity in these watersheds”
    • “unfragmented forest canopy”

What it names

Roadless areas
Harper CreekLost CoveWilson Creek

The comment

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

To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit the Pisgah forestlands near my home, specifically spending a great deal of time in the Wilson's Creek, Harper's Creek, and Lost Cove forests. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I value the pristine wilderness and backcountry trails that these areas provide. These forests are vital, not just for their natural beauty, but as essential havens for wildlife and for the quiet, undisturbed recreational experiences I cherish. Furthermore, these specific roadless tracts provide irreplaceable, contiguous habitat for numerous federally protected and vulnerable species. The unfragmented forest canopy, clean headwaters, and isolated ridgelines of areas like Wilson Creek and Harper Creek are vital to the survival of federally endangered and threatened species, including the Indiana Myotis, Northern Long-eared Bat, and Gray Myotis, as well as imperiled flora like the Blue Ridge Goldenrod and Carolina Hemlock. Road construction and industrial activity in these watersheds would directly disrupt sensitive habitats critical to species currently proposed for listing or under formal federal review, such as the Tricolored Bat, Bog Turtle, and Golden-winged Warbler. Preserving the 2001 Roadless Rule is an essential legal and ecological safeguard against the accelerated decline and fragmentation of these species' native Southern Appalachian ranges. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Ken Gordon

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