Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-258093

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 23, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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.
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.
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.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “large, intact areas of habitat that wildlife depend upon”
- “fragments wildlife habitat”
- “wildlife viewing”
- “wildlife habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “watersheds that provide clean water to our communities”
- “affects streams and watersheds”
- “clean water”
- “increases erosion and sedimentation”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “places where we hike and recreate”
- “Hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing”
- “access to quiet natural places”
- “wild and undeveloped character”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “intact ecosystems”
- “permanently alter the character of places”
- “restoring what has been lost can be extraordinarily difficult”
- “extraordinary natural resource”

What it names

National Forests: George Washington National Forest
Roadless areas: Gum RunLittle RiverOak KnobRamseys Draft Addition

The comment

I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to select the No Action Alternative and retain the Roadless Rule. I live in Virginia, near the George Washington National Forest, and these protections are not an abstract national policy to me. Roadless areas in the Shenandoah Valley and surrounding mountains protect the places where we hike and recreate, the watersheds that provide clean water to our communities, and large, intact areas of habitat that wildlife depend upon. Of particular concern to me are the roadless areas within the proposed Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, including Oak Knob, Gum Run, Skidmore Fork, Little River, and the Ramseys Draft Addition. These lands represent an extraordinary natural resource for Virginia and should receive greater protection, not less. Road construction does much more than create a path through a forest. It fragments wildlife habitat, increases erosion and sedimentation, affects streams and watersheds, and can permanently alter the character of places that have remained largely undeveloped. Once an intact roadless landscape is fragmented, restoring what has been lost can be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. I also strongly value these lands for outdoor recreation. The wild and undeveloped character of our national forests is one of the things that makes the Shenandoah Valley such a special place to live and visit. Hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, and simply having access to quiet natural places are important to our quality of life and to the economies of communities surrounding our public lands. I understand the need for responsible forest management and wildfire prevention. However, I do not believe eliminating nationwide protections for millions of acres of roadless National Forest lands is necessary to accomplish those goals. The Roadless Rule already contains exceptions that allow certain activities when needed to protect public health and safety and address other legitimate management needs. These public lands belong to all Americans, including future generations. Decisions affecting them should reflect their tremendous long-term value for clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, climate resilience, and intact ecosystems, rather than the short-term benefits that may come from additional road construction, logging, or development. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. In particular, please protect the remaining roadless lands of the George Washington National Forest and the proposed Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area so that these remarkable places remain intact for generations to come.