Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-489332

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fails to reconcile its economic and wildfire justifications with its own DEIS data showing higher fire density on roaded lands and negative net present value, while ignoring documented wildlife impacts in Virginia's roadless areas and existing regulatory exceptions.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “I go there to see deer, birds, chipmunks, frogs, snakes, and black bear”
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes”
- “shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “part of why Virginia feels like home ground for hiking”
- “Virginia's fall foliage is some of the most beautiful in America”
- “I photograph the scenery itself”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected areas”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million”
- “expanding a road system that already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
- “fiscally defensible when its own analysis cannot show a positive return”

What it names

National Forests: George Washington National Forest
Law cited: 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

The George Washington National Forest is precious to me. Its ancient forests and roadless areas are part of why Virginia feels like home ground for hiking, and Virginia's fall foliage is some of the most beautiful in America. I go there to see deer, birds, chipmunks, frogs, snakes, and black bear. Seeing them is part of the amazing adventure. I photograph the scenery itself. All of that depends on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule staying in place, and I oppose its rescission without reservation. Virginia holds 64 inventoried roadless areas totaling 393,682 acres, including areas within the George Washington. The birds I look for in those forests are already under pressure from roads nearby. The agency's own record says that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The deer and black bear I encounter in those same places face their own documented risks: the DEIS cites Wyoming research finding roads built for oil extraction may have altered mule deer migration routes and increased their movement speed, and the DEIS quotes the federal grizzly recovery plan finding that shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. Opening these forests to road construction would not leave those animals where I find them. I ask that the agency address, species by species, how its analysis accounts for these documented effects on wildlife in Virginia's roadless areas, and that it explain why its proposal does not engage them. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire management grounds, and that argument collapses against the agency's own evidence. 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." I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected areas. The economic case for rescission does not survive the agency's own numbers. The record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. Across the Southern region, which includes Virginia, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and the costs of degraded watersheds are not captured in those figures. The agency must explain on the record how expanding a road system that already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog is fiscally defensible when its own analysis cannot show a positive return. The proposal suggests that state-by-state approaches can replace a national rule. The agency's own record contradicts that premise. The DEIS states: "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 already reviewed the last attempt to substitute state petitions for national protection and found it wanting. The agency has not explained how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies identified in that litigation, and it should be required to do so before this rule is rescinded. Finally, the administrative burden argument rests on a fiction. The rule as written already states that it generally banned road building "subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." Exceptions for mineral rights, public safety, and community wildfire protection are already in the rule. The agency must identify, with specificity, which burdens are not already addressed by those exceptions, and quantify them, before citing administrative inconvenience as grounds for rescission. The George Washington's roadless areas are not abstractions. They are where I hike, photograph, and find wildlife. I urge the agency to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Sincerely, N. W. Maryland resident, American hiker and wilderness enthusist