Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-611361

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 16/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Exact copy — Byte-identical to another submission. This comment stands for 2 submissions in its group.

In short: The comment documents that the DEIS fails to disclose that certain land management plans relied upon for ESA compliance predate the federal listing of specific species (Lassics lupine, big sandy crayfish, Big Creek crayfish, Sonora chub) and thus lack species-specific protections, contradicting the assurance at page 170 that project designs will avoid adverse effects.

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
- “value its forests, wildlife, and ecological diversity”
- “fragment habitat, and introduces continuing human disturbance”
- “provide disproportionately important habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species”
- “restrict wildlife movement, and affect the ability of species to find food, reproduce, and survive”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I regularly hike and explore Bearwallow”
- “experience forests and wildlife without the impacts associated with roads and development”
- “Access to relatively untouched wilderness matters”
- “valuable public resources that provide recreation”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “land management plans predate the species' federal listing and contain no species-specific protections”
- “future project designs in these areas would avoid and minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed resources”
- “removal of existing administrative protection could result in a future project reaching the level of 'may affect, likely to adversely affect'”
- “Correct or clarify the statement at page 170 so it does not imply that land management plan consistency provides species-specific protections”

What it names

National Forests: Pisgah National Forest Six Rivers National Forest
Roadless areas: Big Creek

The comment

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

Dear USDA Leadership: I am submitting this comment regarding the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, with particular concern for roadless areas in North Carolina’s Pisgah National Forest, including Bearwallow and Bald Knob. I regularly hike and explore Bearwallow and have come to value its forests, wildlife, and ecological diversity. Bald Knob is another remarkably beautiful area. These places represent something increasingly difficult to find: relatively undisturbed public lands where people can experience forests and wildlife without the impacts associated with roads and development. My time outdoors has taught me that the character of a roadless area cannot simply be restored once a road is constructed. Trees can be replanted, but a road permanently alters the landscape, fragments habitat, and introduces continuing human disturbance. Access to relatively untouched wilderness matters not only in North Carolina, but throughout the country. Roadless areas can also provide disproportionately important habitat for federally listed threatened and endangered species. Road construction and associated disturbance can fragment habitat, restrict wildlife movement, and affect the ability of species to find food, reproduce, and survive. ### Concern Regarding ESA-Listed Species and Land Management Plans The DEIS reports 327 “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determinations and 71 adverse critical habitat determinations for ESA-listed resources. At page 170, however, it states that activities on National Forest System lands must be consistent with applicable land management plans and that “future project designs in these areas would avoid and minimize adverse effects to ESA-listed resources.” The Forest Service’s Draft Biological Assessment indicates that this assurance does not apply equally to all listed species because some applicable land management plans predate the species’ federal listing and contain no species-specific protections. For example, the Assessment states: • Page 352: The 1995 Six Rivers National Forest Land Management Plan “does not contain species-specific protections” for Lassics lupine because the plant was not federally listed until October 2023. • Page 307: The applicable land management plans for the Mark Twain and George Washington and Jefferson National Forests predate the listings of several crayfish species and therefore “do not include plan-level analysis or plan components specific to these species.” These species appear in the DEIS’s own adverse-effect determinations: big sandy crayfish and Big Creek crayfish at page 325, Lassics lupine at page 328, and Sonora chub at page 332. The DEIS should clearly disclose when the land management plan on which its analysis relies predates the listing of the species at issue and therefore contains no species-specific plan components. This is significant because the Draft Biological Assessment itself recognizes that administrative protections within a forest plan can affect the outcome of the analysis. At page 243, regarding Sonora chub, it states that removal of existing administrative protection could result in a future project reaching the level of “may affect, likely to adversely affect.” This issue cannot simply be deferred to future project-level review. Whether an operative land management plan contains species-specific direction is a plan-level fact. A project-level biological evaluation cannot create plan components that do not exist. I therefore request that the final environmental review: 1. Correct or clarify the statement at page 170 so it does not imply that land management plan consistency provides species-specific protections where the applicable plan predates the species’ listing and contains no species-specific components. 2. Identify each ESA-listed species whose listing postdates the applicable land management plan. 3. For each such species, disclose that the applicable plan contains no species-specific components and identify the protections or analytical measures on which the effects analysis instead relies. 4. Clearly identify where these issues have been addressed in the final environmental review. The information needed for this disclosure appears to already be contained in the Forest Service’s Draft Biological Assessment, including its “Existing Protections” tables. Bearwallow, Bald Knob, and other roadless areas are valuable public resources that provide recreation, wildlife habitat, and places where natural ecological processes can continue with comparatively little disturbance. I respectfully request that the USDA fully consider these ecological and species-protection implications and fully disclose the limitations of relying on existing land management plans. Sincerely, Megan Johnston Asheville, nc