Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-565188

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 5, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule could lead to road construction in Linville Gorge, Pisgah National Forest, which would threaten the nesting habitats of the Chuck-will's-widow and Whip-poor-will, and requests that the Forest Service complete an ESA Section 7 consultation for these species before proceeding.

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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “impact the nesting habitat of the Chuck-will's-widow and Whip-poor-will”
    • “logging activity would increase habitat loss and fragmentation”
    • “presence of roads is highly correlated with changes in species composition”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “two bird species of concern”
    • “population decline of roughly 58% to 69%”
    • “IUCN lists them as Near Threatened”
  • Legal Regulatory Framework
    • “complete an ESA Section 7 consultation”
    • “before deciding to rescind the Roadless Rule”

What it names

National Forests
Pisgah National Forest
Law cited
36 CFR Part 294
Works cited
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

I lived in North Carolina for 16 years and enjoyed hiking, camping and birding in Linville Gorge in the Pisgah National Forest. If the 2001 Roadless Rule (36 CFR Part 294) is rescinded, road construction could occur in previously protected roadless areas. If this happens, ground disturbance could impact the nesting habitat of the Chuck-will’s-widow and Whip-poor-will, two bird species of concern that summer in the area and nest on the ground in leaf and pine litter. The Chuck-will's-widow (Antrostomus carolinensis) has experienced a population decline of roughly 58% to 69% between 1966 and the present according to multi-decade tracking data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus) populations have dropped by an estimated 50% to 70% since the late 1960s and 1970s, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists them as Near Threatened. After road construction, traffic dust and noise could increase passive harassment of these species as the area becomes more accessible, and any logging activity would increase habitat loss and fragmentation. Trombulak and Frissell (2001) found that the presence of roads is highly correlated with changes in species composition and population sizes. If not already done, the Forest Service should complete an ESA Section 7 consultation regarding these two species of concern before deciding to rescind the Roadless Rule. Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A., Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, 14: 18-30 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x

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