Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-240588

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted August 21, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's proposal is contradicted by its own DEIS data regarding wildfire risks on roaded lands, contains an internally inconsistent regulatory flexibility analysis that improperly spreads economic harms to small entities, and fails to adequately assess reliance interests as required by Supreme Court precedent.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Solitude and nature are what I go for”
- “I paddle rivers too”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “I plan future paddling trips to Virginia”
Wildlife Habitat
- “West Virginia northern flying squirrel”
- “Cheat Mountain salamander”
- “northern long-eared bat”
- “red spruce ecosystems”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “The strongest reason to reject this rescission is fire safety”
Water Quality Quantity
- “protect headwaters feeding the Potomac”
- “drinking water of Washington, D.C.”
- “378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”

What it names

National Forests: Monongahela National Forest
Roadless areas: Cheat MountainCranberry AdditionCranberry Glades Botanical AreaGauley MountainMcgowan MountainTea Creek MountainTurkey Mountain

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Wherever I travel, I look for national forests to visit. Solitude and nature are what I go for. The Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia is exactly the kind of place I seek out, and the inventoried roadless areas there, including Gauley Mountain, Turkey Mountain, Tea Creek Mountain, Cranberry Addition, McGowan Mountain, and Cranberry Glades Botanical Area, hold the kind of country I want to keep finding. I paddle rivers too. I have paddled the Buffalo River in Arkansas and the Wisconsin River most recently, and my next trips are headed to Virginia and Texas. I am interested in all types of wildlife and native plants wherever I go. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel, the Cheat Mountain salamander, the snowshoe hare, the northern long-eared bat, and the red spruce ecosystems of the Monongahela are exactly what the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects. Rescinding that rule would put all of it at risk. I oppose this proposal. The strongest reason to reject this rescission is fire safety, and the agency's own record makes the case against it. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." The proposal leans on wildfire and fuels management as a justification for opening roadless areas to development, yet that same logic is directly contradicted by the agency's own ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with that data before proceeding. This is not the first time the agency has tried to replace the national rule with something more flexible, and it lost that argument in court. The record itself acknowledges that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.'" 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656. The Ninth Circuit rejected that reasoning the last time the agency substituted a state-by-state framework for the national rule, finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. The Monongahela's 20 inventoried roadless areas total 174,885 acres and protect headwaters feeding the Potomac and ultimately the drinking water of Washington, D.C. Arkansas holds 15 inventoried roadless areas totaling 95,015 acres, and across the Southern region, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Values at that scale are not adequately protected piecemeal. How does this proposal avoid the same deficiencies the court identified before? The regulatory flexibility analysis underlying this proposal is also internally inconsistent. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The certification reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The agency concedes some of those firms may lose those receipts entirely. Spreading that harm across every firm in the country to make it disappear statistically is not analysis. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating inside the potentially affected roadless areas. Finally, the proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under the standards the Supreme Court articulated in Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency changing course must actually assess the reliance interests its prior policy created, not simply invite comments and ignore them. This comment is one such interest. I plan future paddling trips to Virginia and I seek out the Monongahela and forests like it precisely because the Roadless Rule has protected their character for over two decades. That expectation is a reliance interest. The agency should identify and genuinely weigh what it finds in the record it is building, including this comment. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your City, State]