Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-291341

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted August 31, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the DEIS fails to quantify sediment delivery to downstream municipal intakes, identify specific enforceable forest plan provisions equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13, apply the cited 13-75% biodiversity fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment, or reconcile the agency's admission of water quality harm from road maintenance shortfalls with its proposal to increase road mileage in inventoried roadless areas.

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, Evidence, 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
- “Cold water is the whole thing. Roads are how you ruin it.”
- “protect headwaters that feed the Potomac and eventually the drinking water of Washington, D.C.”
- “skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion”
- “Lack of maintenance commonly has detrimental effects on water quality”
Wildlife Habitat
- “habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent”
- “shelter the Cheat Mountain salamander, the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, the northern long-eared bat”
- “Dolly Sods carries spruce-bog habitat more reminiscent of northern Canada”
- “These species and places are exactly what fragmentation science describes as vulnerable”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “identify, forest by forest, which specific plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13”
- “The DEIS says forest plans address sources of public drinking water, but identifies no enforceable plan provision by name”
- “rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not pass the gut test”
- “I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery... and put that projection in the record”

What it names

National Forests: George Washington National Forest Monongahela National Forest
Roadless areas: Cheat MountainDolly Sods Roaring PlainGum RunNorth Mountain HopevilleNorthern MassanuttenOak KnobSouthern MassanuttenSpring Creek
Law cited: 36 CFR 294.12

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 Cold water is the whole thing. Roads are how you ruin it. I fish spring creeks in Pennsylvania and I see it happening: the subterranean water table shifts, the spring creek issuance changes, and the source is often what you put on the land and how you let water move through it. Road access is a version of that same problem on the exposed side, above ground. That is what I know in my gut, and rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not pass the gut test. I am writing about inventoried roadless areas I chose because they matter to me: Northern Massanutten, 9,444 acres in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia; Southern Massanutten, 11,985 acres; Gum Run, 12,620 acres; Oak Knob, 10,882 acres; Skidmore, 5,641 acres; Dry River in the same forest; Big Schloss, 8,375 acres in the George Washington in West Virginia; and in the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, North Mountain Hopeville, 6,525 acres, and Dolly Sods Roaring Plain, 13,392 acres. Virginia holds 64 inventoried roadless areas totaling 393,682 acres. The Monongahela's 20 inventoried roadless areas total 174,885 acres and protect headwaters that feed the Potomac and eventually the drinking water of Washington, D.C. Across the Southern region, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. These are not abstractions. The agency's own DEIS states that skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." That number appears in the document. No projection of what that sediment load actually reaches the streams below follows it. The spring creeks I watch in Pennsylvania do not recover quickly from sediment pulses. The Monongahela protects headwaters that become drinking water for millions of people. The George Washington's roadless acres protect tributary systems that feed into those same broader watersheds. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas, and put that projection in the record. The DEIS states: "Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired." That sentence is offered as reassurance. It is not one. Less than 12 percent impaired now tells me nothing about what happens after road mileage increases in places like the Dolly Sods Roaring Plain or the Gum Run drainage. The DEIS says forest plans address sources of public drinking water, but identifies no enforceable plan provision by name. I want the agency to identify, forest by forest, which specific plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. Name them. The DEIS also cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The Monongahela's roadless acres shelter the Cheat Mountain salamander, the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, the northern long-eared bat, snowshoe hare, and red spruce ecosystems described as relics of the last ice age. Dolly Sods carries spruce-bog habitat more reminiscent of northern Canada than West Virginia. These species and places are exactly what fragmentation science describes as vulnerable. But the cited range is never applied to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. A range of 13 to 75 percent applied to 40.1 million acres produces a projection the agency owes the public. I ask that the agency apply that cited fragmentation range to the full potentially affected acreage and show its work. Finally, the DEIS states: "Lack of maintenance commonly has detrimental effects on water quality. Insufficient maintenance funding is a key reason for the lack of adequate road maintenance." That is the agency telling me that existing roads are already damaging water quality because there is not enough money to maintain them. The same document proposes opening roadless areas to additional road construction. I want the agency to reconcile those two positions in plain language. We can have financial prosperity and conservative conservation practices, and I believe a deal can be negotiated, but not by adding road mileage on top of a maintenance shortfall that the agency's own analysis identifies as a cause of water quality harm. Find a different path forward. Sincerely, Sean Eagan Manchester, MD