Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-371388

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment places on the record specific data regarding water intakes, bird abundance, wildfire ignition rates, and economic projections from the agency's own DEIS and Federal Register, arguing that these figures contradict the justification for rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the Croatan 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

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

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, 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
- “hike or paddle into country that remains unroaded is part of the value”
- “erodes the ability to distance yourself from those who rely on vehicles”
- “damage or destroy what makes them worth seeking out”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Water Quality Quantity
- “less-pressured fisheries and cleaner water”
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “what happens to water quality in the watersheds draining the Croatan units”
- “buffer that roadless designation currently provides is removed”
Wildlife Habitat
- “Swainson's Warbler, a species that requires old-growth bottomland hardwood habitat”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “fragmenting the remaining roadless habitat is necessary”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS”

What it names

National Forests: Croatan National Forest
Roadless areas: Catfish Lake NorthPocosin AdditionPond Pine BSheep Ridge Addition
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The American idea of a frontier still means something to me. I have hunted my whole life, and the work required to hike or paddle into country that remains unroaded is part of the value. Putting more roads into these forests increases pressure and erodes the ability to distance yourself from those who rely on vehicles. Roadless areas in the Croatan National Forest, including the Pocosin Addition, Sheep Ridge Addition, Catfish Lake North, Catfish Lake South, and Pond Pine B units, represent the Public Trust set aside for exactly this kind of recreation, and the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would damage or destroy what makes them worth seeking out. I have fished my entire life as well, and what roadless protection means in practice is less-pressured fisheries and cleaner water. North Carolina holds 38 inventoried roadless areas totaling 172,416 acres, and across the Southern region, which includes North Carolina, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Opening these forests to road construction does not leave those values intact. I ask that the agency address, specifically and on the record, what happens to water quality in the watersheds draining the Croatan units when the buffer that roadless designation currently provides is removed. One of my best bird sightings was a Swainson's Warbler, a species that requires old-growth bottomland hardwood habitat. The Roadless Rule protects exactly those habitats, and the agency's own record supports what anyone who has spent time watching birds in unroaded forest already knows. The DEIS cites the findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. There is plenty of accessible timber already available in the Croatan, and the agency must explain why fragmenting the remaining roadless habitat is necessary when its own evidence documents this degree of harm to bird communities. The proposal attempts to justify rescission partly on wildfire management grounds, but the agency's own record states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The agency must explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS. The economic case for rescission is equally unsupported by the agency's own analysis. The record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million, and a road maintenance backlog already sitting at $6.9 billion. The agency has not established that a net benefit exists, and I ask directly how expanding a system it cannot afford to maintain is justified by numbers it cannot resolve in favor of the action. The proposal also argues for state-by-state alternatives to a national rule, but the agency's own record acknowledges that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency must confront its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and it must explain how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies that ended the last attempt to replace the national rule with a state-by-state framework. Finally, the proposal's challenge to the statutory authority underlying the 2001 rule is contradicted by the courts that already examined that question. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency must address that court's holding that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. Any position to the contrary requires a legal explanation the agency has not yet provided. Sincerely, Elliott Lupton Havelock, NC 28532