Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-579295

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the DEIS's ESA determinations rely on an exposure screen (page 169) and disclaimer (page 168) that are internally inconsistent with the agency's own literature and fail to estimate activity levels, thereby creating a gap in the analysis for 327 species and 71 critical habitats that renders a 'likely to adversely affect' finding arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

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

Water Quality Quantity
- “protects the sources that feed that life including water”
- “pollute our watershed”
- “complete more man made filtering techniques”
- “sediment effects”
Wildlife Habitat
- “protects essential life including that of humans, animals, and plants”
- “effects on the wild life that drinks or lives in our streams and rivers”
- “endangered species may go extinct”
- “fragmentation of habitats”
Cultural Heritage Indigenous
- “protect the rich cultural heritage in this area of the Natives”
- “forced the trail of tears upon the Cherokee”
- “taking away even more aspects of their culture”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act”
- “arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)”
- “7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(iii)”
- “exposure method its own cited literature shows is too narrow”

What it names

Law cited: 7 CFR 1b

The comment

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

The roadless rule protects essential life including that of humans, animals, and plants-- not to mention the sources that feed that life including water. I am writing this as a newer western NC local. I waited all my life to move here and enjoy the protected sanctuary of our roadless forests. Not only does the roadless rule protect the forests up here in WNC, it also protects the Croatan forest back home in ENC that I grew up enjoying. Rescinding the roadless rule will have divesting effects on the lives of humans, animals, and plants everywhere, not just the surrounding areas by these roadless forests. It could pollute our watershed causing us to have to complete more man made filtering techniques, which means higher costs for everyone; not to mention its effects on the wild life that drinks or lives in our streams and rivers. Our already endangered species may go extinct more quickly than we realize if the rule is rescinded. Another reason is to protect the rich cultural heritage in this area of the Natives. Our country already forced the trail of tears upon the Cherokee, what message would we be sending taking away even more aspects of their culture we promised to protect after the fact. The forest service needs to look into more details considering the effects if the rule were to be rescinded. This includes sediment effects, landslide effects, fragmentation of habitats, and natural carbon repurposment. Data shows the rescinding will not even be profitable. Why destroy for no gain and only loss. Please consider these effects. Exposure Screen Without a Road-Effect Zone and Unbounded Activity Level in the ESA Determinations The DEIS's determinations for ESA-listed species rest on an exposure method its own cited literature shows is too narrow, and on an activity level the document declines to estimate while holding the data needed to bound it. Both defects are internal to the DEIS and both are correctable before the FEIS. **These items are not deferrable to project-level review, and they are not optional.** The DEIS concludes at page 170 that "[a]ll future activities in potentially affected IRAs, regardless of the alternative selected, would require compliance with the ESA prior to implementation." That is correct and does not answer any of the four items. The decision before the agency now is whether to remove a rule that prohibits road construction and reconstruction across the entire potentially affected environment. The exposure method, the projected activity level, the programmatic fragmentation picture and the sediment linkage are attributes of that rule-level decision; no site-specific consultation reaches any of them, and by the time site-specific consultation occurs the resource commitment has been made. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to ensure this action does not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, and 7 CFR 1b.7(f)(2)(iii) directs the agency, in response to a substantive comment, to supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. An FEIS that carries forward the page 169 exposure screen and the page 168 disclaimer without addressing items 1 through 4 would rest a "likely to adversely affect" finding for 327 species and 71 designated critical habitats on an analysis the agency's own document shows to be incomplete, and would be arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).