Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-340609

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted September 9, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Rule fails to account for the specific post-Hurricane Helene environmental conditions in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, specifically the cumulative risks of erosion and water quality degradation from new roads in source-water watersheds, and documents the commenter's direct standing through 35 years of documented weekly recreation use in the area.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike/recreate on these public lands weekly”
- “Their roadless character—the solitude, clean streams, intact forest, wildlife habitat, scenery, & absence of development is precisely what I use/value”
- “Backcountry recreation is a use”
- “Solitude is a use”
Water Quality Quantity
- “These forests are drinking-water infrastructure”
- “many WNC communities obtain more than 50% of their municipal water from the Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests”
- “More roads & associated timber activity can create erosion, runoff, stream crossings, culvert/drainage impacts”
- “USDA should specifically evaluate overlap between IRAs & source-water watersheds”
Wildlife Habitat
- “wildlife habitat”
- “value for wildlife, biological diversity”
- “Wildlife habitat is a use”
- “intact forest”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “APA also requires reasoned decisionmaking when an agency rescinds existing regulation”
- “Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm”
- “Organized Village of Kake v. USDA”
- “USDA should not assume that individual forest plans are an equivalent substitute for the national rule”

What it names

Law cited: 463 U.S. 29 556 U.S. 502 795 F.3d 956

The comment

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

I oppose USDA’s proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001) & urge the USFS to select the No Action Alternative. This is not an abstract issue for me. I’ve lived in WNC for 35 years & have always used these mountains & forests. I hike/recreate on these public lands weekly. Their roadless character—the solitude, clean streams, intact forest, wildlife habitat, scenery, & absence of development is precisely what I use/value. My past & future use of these lands is publicly documented on my Insta account.⁷ The Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests contain approximately 152,488 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs).¹ The current Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan recognizes their undeveloped character & value for wildlife, biological diversity, & dispersed recreation. Critically, that plan expressly states that IRAs are governed by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule & directs that the undeveloped character be retained.² USDA should not assume that individual forest plans are an equivalent substitute for the national rule. The current local plan was written against a regulatory baseline in which the Roadless Rule (RR) exists. Before rescission, USDA should identify exactly what protections survive independently, which depend upon the RR, & whether remaining protections would actually be equivalent. The issue is urgent after Hurricane Helene. The Forest Service documented winds over 100 mph, washed-out roads,trails, extensive treefall, & hundreds of miles of blocked roads.³ Recovery is ongoing. WNC is not entering this rulemaking from an undisturbed environmental baseline. More roads & associated timber activity can create erosion, runoff, stream crossings, culvert/drainage impacts, & long-term obligations. USFS research specifically recognizes forest roads as potentially major sources of erosion & stream sediment.⁴ Risks are particularly consequential in this area following Helene’s landslides, debris flows, erosion, stream alteration, & slope disturbance. These forests are drinking-water infrastructure. USFS’ current plan states that many WNC communities obtain more than 50% of their municipal water from the Nantahala & Pisgah National Forests.**² USDA should specifically evaluate overlap between IRAs & source-water watersheds & analyze the cumulative effects of new roads, timber ops, & associated soil disturbance with Helene watershed damage. APA also requires reasoned decisionmaking when an agency rescinds existing regulation. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (‘83),Supreme Court held regulatory rescission subject to arbitrary-&-capricious review & requires the agency to consider important aspects of the problem & provide reasoned explanation.⁵ FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (‘09), Court further explains when a policy change contradicts prior factual findings or implicates serious reliance interests, those matters must be addressed.⁵ That principle has been applied specifically to the RR. Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. ‘15)(en banc), USDA’s Tongass exemption was invalidated due to the agency failed adequately to explain its reversal of previous facts.⁶ Although persuasive rather than controlling precedent in North Carolina, Kake applies State Farm & Fox to this same agency & same RR. Existing RR also contains exceptions for public health/safety, catastrophe, restoration, existing rights, & other specified circumstances.² If USDA believes provisions impede necessary forest-health or emergency work, it should consider targeted amendments, not wholesale rescission of nationwide protections. I also ask USDA to consider my interest personally. I continue weekly use. If these forests lose their roadlessness, my injury would be direct & cannot be remedied by the existence of other public land. A roadless forest is itself a public resource. Solitude is a use. Backcountry recreation is a use. Clean water is a use. Wildlife habitat is a use. Multiple use does not require every use on every acre. For these reasons, as a WNC resident with documented, longstanding use, I strongly urge USDA to retain 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. ¹ USDA Forest Service, Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (2014) (152,488 IRA acres). ² USDA Forest Service, Final Land Management Plan, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, R8-MB-160 (2023). ³ USDA Forest Service, Wildfire in Wake of Hurricane Helene (2025). ⁴ USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Grace, Modeling Erosion from Forest Roads with WEPP (2007); Kochenderfer, Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians, RP NE-158 (1970). ⁵ Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 41–57 (1983); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502, 514–16 (2009). ⁶ Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956, 966–70 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).