Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 17, 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 eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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 decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe 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 shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
Marjorie M. Lewter DVM
876 Sinking Spring Hollow
New Castle, VA 24127
Sept 17, 2026
Re: DEIS Roadless rule
To whom it may concern,
I live adjacent to Jefferson National Forest and it is a shawl of protection. It is a repository of protection, clean misty air, clear limestone water, and wildlife that together enhance the quality of life for everyone who visits my farm, lives in this valley, this county and this state.
The national forest belongs to all Americans, not to the USDA, not to the Forest Service, and not to congressional leaders. These entities have been given the task to administer and protect the natural resources that our forest lands contain. Resources such as water and timber are renewable, thus the forest continues to supply generations with these essentials. Just as essential are the things not extracted by humans such as the amazing variety of Appalachian plants that feed the ecosystem with nectar, pollen, seeds, fruits and medicines.
I write to ask that the roadless rules remain in place to protect our forests. Building more roads for the purpose of vehicular traffic serves the interests of business entities interested in resource extraction. People can access the forest lands by trails and current roads without building more roads. The roads we have in my county of Craig, Virginia are not maintained so how much more money will be required to maintain more than we have currently? Roads must be maintained or they become a ravine for soil erosion and flooding. Our steep mountain roads must have water bars or culverts to prevent wash-out. Most are undrivable , even with my 4WD truck.
It has been stated that fire control might be enhanced by building of more roads. This is not supported by the evidence that over 90% of wildfires are human caused. Allowing more people and vehicles in the back country will invite more fires, not less. In addition, the current regulations allow for building of temporary roads for fire control. Wildfire is taking over 50% of the budget of the USFS, so we would not want to invite more people into the back country to start more fires!
With the vehicles, will come invasive species of plants, invasive insects such as the Gypsy Moth, Emerald Ash Borer, and the Spotted Lanternfly which highly contribute to the danger of wildfires when trees are dying or dead from insect pests.
The increased access to logging associated with new roads in roadless areas will take away some of the pristeen back country that America is known for. It will further cut up ecosystems and habitats for our game species such as bear and elk. Where logging is recommended, temporary roads are allowed for access currently.
In an era of climate change and more severe weather events, I have witnessed flooding and timber damage that no road can control and even the clearing of current roads after these events has taken many months. (Example is Flat top trail system and Dismal Creek Road in Jefferson National Forest). It seems that the Forest Service has enough on its plate right now rather than adding more financial and labor needs to its budget.
I am a trail volunteer with Back Country Horsemen of America and we try to help our local rangers with the work load, but we constantly hear their budget woes.
He Appalachian Scenic Trail passes along the mountain behind my farm and numerous hikers are in the area near me. My Air BnB guests are mostly hikers. These recreation benefits to the community cannot be measured in dollars.
In addition, I am Chair of Preserve Craig, Inc. a nonprofit organization which seeks to preserve our way of life here. We are an agricultural community in a sparsely populated region that depends on tourism as a large attraction. The vast majority of that tourism is directly related to the Jefferson National Forest for hunting, hiking, biking, and trail riding.
He roadless rule was put into place to protect our forest lands and today, they need protection more than ever as a repository of resources, animal and plant diversity and a carbon capture system of healthy trees. The rule received extensive comments and support across the country. It was a good decision then and remains so. I ask you to do all you can to prevent rescinding the roadless rule.
Sincerely,
Dr. Marjorie Lewter