Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-375554

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 13, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS fails to disclose that for specific ESA-listed species (Lassics lupine, big sandy crayfish, Big Creek crayfish, and Sonora chub), the underlying land management plans predate their listings and lack species-specific protections, rendering the DEIS's reliance on plan consistency for avoiding adverse effects incomplete and unsupported by the agency's own Biological Assessment.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

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.
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.

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.
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
- “pristine wildlife habitats”
- “ESA-listed species”
- “adverse critical habitat determinations”
- “species-specific protections”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas”
- “unfragmented landscapes”
- “maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas”
- “loss of an administrative protection”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “DEIS Relies on Land Management Plan Consistency”
- “premise the agency's own Biological Assessment records as false”
- “plan-level fact”
- “disclosure therefore has to occur in this document”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands”
- “frequently visit the Linville Gorge”
- “natural resources and tourism”

What it names

National Forests: Coronado National Forest Mark Twain National Forest Six Rivers National Forest
Roadless areas: Big Creek

The comment

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 Linville Gorge near my home - Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I value the pristine wildlife habitats and we all benefit from the natural resources and tourism that these beautiful protected spaces allow. 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 provide public comment. Sincerely, Teresa Fisher The DEIS Relies on Land Management Plan Consistency for Species Whose Listings Postdate the Plans The DEIS's conclusion on ESA-listed species rests on a premise the agency's own Biological Assessment records as false for an identified set of those species. At page 170, under "Conclusion," the DEIS states: "Under all alternatives, activities on NFS lands must comply with laws, regulations, and policies. All projects on NFS lands must be consistent with land management plans," and that "future project designs in these areas would avoid and minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed resources." Consistency with land management plans is the only effects-limiting assurance the DEIS offers against the 327 "may affect, likely to adversely affect" species determinations and 71 adverse critical habitat determinations it reports on that same page. The Forest Service's Draft Biological Assessment for USFWS-listed species establishes that plan direction is load-bearing in those determinations. At page 243, for the Sonora chub, the agency reasons directly from the loss of an administrative protection to a worse outcome: "Removal of the high degree of administrative protection within the Coronado National Forest Plan; any future project could reach the level of not being discountable and may affect, likely to adversely affect Sonora chub." Where plan-level protection exists, the Assessment treats its removal as changing the determination. For several listed species there is no such protection to begin with, because the operative plan was adopted before the species was listed. Draft Biological Assessment, page 352: "The 1995 Six Rivers NF LMP does not contain species-specific protections for Lupinus constancei (Lassics lupine), because the plant was listed as federally endangered in October 2023." Page 307: "Big Creek crayfish and St. Francis River crayfish were federally listed in 2023 and the big sandy crayfish was listed in 2016. The current land management plans for the Mark Twain National Forest and George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (where these species potentially occur based on IPAC) pre-date the listing of these three crayfish species and therefore do not include plan-level analysis or plan components specific to these species." All of these species appear in the DEIS's own Table 58 as likely to be adversely affected — big sandy crayfish and Big Creek crayfish at page 325, Lassics lupine at page 328, Sonora chub at page 332. The DEIS does not disclose this. The phrases "predate the listing" and "plan components specific to these species" appear nowhere in it; its only discussion of anything that pre-dates a plan concerns roads and mineral leases pre-dating the 2001 Rule (pages 185 and 218). A reader of the DEIS is told that plan consistency and project design will avoid and minimize adverse effects to listed species, and is not told that for an identified subset of those species the plans contain no species-specific direction at all. The statement at page 170 is therefore incomplete as to those species, and it is the agency's own Assessment that establishes it. This cannot be deferred to project-level analysis. The absence of a species-specific plan component is a plan-level fact. No project-level biological evaluation creates a plan component that the plan does not contain, and a project cannot be made consistent with direction that has never been written. The assurance the DEIS gives at page 170 cannot be made accurate at the project stage, and the disclosure therefore has to occur in this document. Nor is it addressed elsewhere in the analysis. The ESA discussion at pages 168 through 170 states the determinations and the plan-consistency assurance; it says nothing about whether the plans it relies on cover the species it lists.