Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-574692

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents specific deficiencies in the agency's analysis regarding water quality, avian biodiversity, wildfire risk, and economic net benefit, citing the agency's own DEIS data and prior legal holdings to request explanations for how the rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule will protect these resources.

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
- “protect headwaters that feed the Potomac & eventually the drinking water of Washington, D.C.”
- “runoff, sediment, & water quality after logging and roadwork greatly diminish the health and quantity of fish”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90%of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “how it expects sediment loads in these headwaters to remain within safe limits”
Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat”
- “road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “spruce-bog ecosystems... support species found nowhere else in this region”
- “documented, rule-cited losses to avian biodiversity”
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”
- “ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog against a road budget of approximately $73 million a year”
- “projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million”
- “Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit”

What it names

National Forests: Monongahela National Forest
Roadless areas: Cheat MountainGlady Fork
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Herons & bald eagles over Dolly Sods plateau, the cold headwaters threading down through Cheat Mountain & Glady Fork, the spruce-bog country on the highest points of the Monongahela National Forest: this is what the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would put at risk. I oppose the proposed rescission, and I ask the agency to answer the specific questions this comment raises. The Monongahela's 20 inventoried roadless areas total 174,885 acres & protect headwaters that feed the Potomac & eventually the drinking water of Washington, D.C. Across the Eastern region, which includes West Virginia, 286 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. I understand that runoff, sediment, & water quality after logging and roadwork greatly diminish the health and quantity of fish, if they do not kill them off entirely. The agency's own data holds that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90%of the sediment from a timber sale. Fewer than 12% of the watersheds fed by these roadless areas have impaired streams today. I ask the agency to explain, with specificity, what watershed protection it intends to substitute for the rule's current protections, and how it expects sediment loads in these headwaters to remain within safe limits without them. The DEIS cites the findings 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 spruce-bog ecosystems of the Monongahela, relics of the last ice age clinging to the highest ridges, support species found nowhere else in this region. The agency has not explained how the bird communities of these areas survive a road network that its own cited science says reduces their abundance and drives a third of their species away. I ask that the agency address this finding directly and explain what mitigation it considers adequate to offset documented, rule-cited losses to avian biodiversity in the affected areas. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet the agency's own record 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 agency must explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence, and must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog against a road budget of approximately $73 million a year. The agency's own 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 must reconcile this proposal with its own economic analysis, which 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 spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying that backlog serves the public interest when the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The agency's record also 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 a state-by-state replacement for this rule and found it wanting. The agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies. Finally, the courts that reviewed the 2001 rule's statutory authority held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency must address the Tenth Circuit's holding that the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted and did not create de facto wilderness, and state plainly the basis for any contrary legal position it now advances. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. The agency owes the public clear answers to every question this comment raises. Sincerely, Sally Morrison Bentleyville, PA