Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-441293

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 11/24Owed an answerPosted September 17, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission lacks adequate procedural engagement and that the DEIS fails to provide the site-specific NEPA analysis required for the Bearwallow IRA in Pisgah National Forest, while documenting significant public opposition and economic burdens associated with road construction.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.

Topics

Governance Policy Process
- “not preceded by the kind of comprehensive public engagement”
- “procedural concerns the Department should address”
- “compressed 21-day public comment period”
- “codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back without an act of Congress”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “unique ecological characteristics”
- “distinct species assemblages”
- “jeopardizes 44.5 million acres of undeveloped backcountry forestland”
- “adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat”
Public Opinion Support
- “more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission”
- “76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule”
- “bipartisan backing”
- “More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watershed configurations”
- “chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the U.S. are not impaired”
- “drainage patterns”
- “prevent erosion”

What it names

National Forests: Pisgah National Forest
Law cited: 40 CFR 1502

The comment

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

Dear Chief: As an outdoor enthusiast, I am filing these comments to note that the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was not preceded by the kind of comprehensive public engagement that produced the original Rule — a disproportion that raises procedural concerns the Department should address before the proposed action is finalized. I believe in the protection and preservation of the beauty of Appalachian and all its natural resources. I’ve seen countless times where kowtowing to financial incentive or outside pressure has been detrimental to this region and its people. I love this region with all that I am. Allowing access for logging under the guise of “wildfire” protection is a joke. If people lose access to any part of this region because of construction or logging, then the fundamental rights of nature have been violated. Regarding the Bearwallow in the Pisgah National Forest, North Carolina: The Bearwallow IRA (4,113 acres) in Pisgah National Forest possesses unique ecological characteristics — including distinct species assemblages, watershed configurations, and ecosystem composition — that a programmatic analysis covering 2,332 roadless areas cannot adequately evaluate. Road construction impacts in the Bearwallow IRA (4,113 acres), Pisgah National Forest, depend on site-specific variables — slope, soil type, drainage patterns, habitat connectivity — that differ fundamentally from other roadless areas and demand individualized analysis under NEPA. The DEIS must provide site-specific NEPA analysis for the Bearwallow IRA (4,113 acres) in Pisgah National Forest, as required by 40 CFR 1502. A programmatic assessment of 2,332 roadless areas does not satisfy the requirement for analysis proportional to site-specific impacts. "Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment: Roads must be constructed and maintained in accordance with best management practices to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the U.S. are not impaired and that the reach of the waters of the U.S. is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment are minimized. Road fill shall be bridged, culverted or designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows. The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained during and following construction to prevent erosion. Construction and maintenance of crossing shall not disrupt the migration or other movement of aquatic life. The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species." — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District The proposed rollback of the 2001 Roadless Rule jeopardizes 44.5 million acres of undeveloped backcountry forestland managed by the U.S. Forest Service. These forests have only remained intact because of the Forest Service's nearly 25-year-old commitment not to build roads in these areas for harmful activities like major logging operations or oil-and-gas drilling. Building more roads in national forests would be a drain on taxpayers. Even with the Roadless Rule in place, the Forest Service already has a 380,000-mile road system—twice as long as the U.S. highway system—crisscrossing national forests. The agency cannot afford to maintain it: the deferred-maintenance road backlog was estimated at $8.4 billion in the 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement and is roughly $15.6 billion in today's dollars. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly flagged Forest Service deferred maintenance as one of the largest in the federal government, and the backlog has never dropped below $5 billion. Adding new roads to inventoried roadless areas would only deepen that hole. The Roadless Rule is one of America's most popular conservation measures, and that support has not faded. Prior to its 2001 enactment, more than 600 public hearings were held nationwide and 1.6 million Americans weighed in to call for protection of these forestlands—more comments than any other federal rule had received at the time. When USDA announced its rescission proposal, the compressed 21-day public comment period in late 2025 drew approximately 600,000 additional comments. A detailed roadless.org analysis of the comment record found that more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission. A February 2026 Pew Charitable Trusts national poll found that 76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule compared to just 13% opposed, with bipartisan backing from 71% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 80% of independents. More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2025 (S.2042 / H.R.3930) to codify the Rule so it could not be rolled back without an act of Congress. Faithfully, MacKenzie May