How do I submit a public comment on Issuance of a Special Use Permit for Forest Roads?

The public comment window for this decision closed on September 21, 2026. The record of what was at stake stays on this page.

When is the public comment deadline for Issuance of a Special Use Permit for Forest Roads?

The comment window closed on September 21, 2026.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

← All fights

Record closed September 21, 2026

Comments closed September 21 · decided

Special use permit would lock up 27.2 acres on Monongahela National Forest roads

U.S. Forest Service · Monongahela National Forest, WV

What: The Forest Service would hand a private operator a ten-year hold on two public forest roads.
Where: Monongahela National Forest, WV
How much: Public access and agency control over 27.2 acres along Forest Roads 223 and 249 on the Monongahela National Forest are at stake.
Decided: Comments closed September 21, 2026. The decision is on file: Responses to comments recieved on the EA. Open it ↗Date from Forest Service CARA comment page ↗, read October 29, 2026.

Where these four lines come from

WhatOur plain-English read of the Forest Service project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
DecidedSeptember 21, 2026, from Forest Service CARA comment page, the notice text ↗: “requested through 9/21/2026 11:59:59 PM (Eastern Standard Time)”. Read October 29, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.

What the proposal said, and what the decision did

Forest Road 249 miles in the permit
Proposed Action: What actions are needed? ↗ and Comment Response ↗
Proposed
1.2 miles
Decided
1.2 miles
Forest Road 223 miles in the permit
Proposed Action: What actions are needed? ↗ and Comment Response ↗
Proposed
3.81 miles
Decided
3.8 miles

Unreviewed · Source: Response to comments, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗

Did the agency answer?

PLAN found 9 issues in the agency’s analysis.

Each issue against the decision, unreviewed

PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action.
The EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action.
The document states the no action alternative 'will not be discussed further,' yet the agency's own analysis acknowledges significant environmental risks from increased truck traffic on FR 249, closure of a public road for 10 years, and potential sediment delivery to candy darter critical habitat. Without a no-action baseline analysis, there is no way to measure whether the permit's impacts are significant enough to require an EIS. The agency should prepare a full no-action alternative analysis or prepare an EIS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“A standalone no action alternative is not required (7 CFR 1b.5(c)(2)(i)) and the EA needs only to address the consequences of taking no action, which is disclosed on pages 5-6 of the EA.”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 14 14.1 · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is being simultaneously closed to the public.
The EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is being simultaneously closed to the public.
The document never quantifies how many coal truck trips per day are expected, making it impossible to assess noise, sediment, spill risk, or cumulative effects on candy darter critical habitat in the South Fork Cherry River watershed. The agency should quantify projected daily truck trips and analyze their incremental effects before issuing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“This information was included in the Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation and that info was used to assess effects on the South Fork Cherry watershed and candy darter critical habitat. Clarification will be added to the proposed action description in the EA.”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 12 12.3 · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project.
The EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project.
However, the permit would run for ten years starting in winter 2026/2027, and no current (2025 or 2026) candy darter presence surveys are cited for Bear Run or the South Fork Cherry River headwaters. Using survey data that is at minimum five years old to support a 'may affect, not likely to adversely affect' determination for a federally endangered species over a ten-year permit term is an unreasoned leap. The agency should require current candy darter presence surveys before finalizing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“reasonable conclusions about candy darter distribution in the Cherry River watershed are stated in the EA and shared by subject matter experts. Summary information was added to the final EA (pages 17 – 18) from the Forest's standard stream survey efforts (AEUI) in Bear Run where candy darter has never been detected.”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 12 12.4 · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026.
The EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026.
The document simultaneously moves toward a decision. Completing a NEPA decision before tribal consultation is finished violates the government-to-government consultation obligation and forecloses the possibility that tribal input could alter the agency's analysis or design criteria. The agency should extend the comment and decision timeline until tribal consultation is complete and formally documented.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area in the higher-risk catchment.
The EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area in the higher-risk catchment.
Table 3 shows the paired receiving catchment (Beverly Fork, 1,344 acres) is far smaller than the source catchment (3,802 acres). Despite flagging this as the weakest link in the watershed risk framework, the document provides no additional mitigation measures specific to this catchment and no explanation of why the standard BMPs are adequate where assimilative capacity is most limited. The agency should analyze and explain what additional protective measures apply to the Headwaters Spring Creek catchment pair.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid.
The EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid.
The watershed risk assessment acknowledges 'a substantially smaller risk would exist for potential groundwater and surface water contamination associated with accidental spills of hazardous material,' but the document contains no spill response plan, no analysis of spill probability over a ten-year term, and no assessment of proximity of spill risk to Bear Run or South Fork Cherry River tributaries. The agency should require a site-specific hazardous materials spill response plan and analyze spill risk before issuing the permit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“A Spill Prevention Plan and Emergency Response Plan will be included in Operation and Maintenance Plan, which will be incorporated in Special Use Permit. The O&M is currently in draft form and will be finalized before the SUP is issued.”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 2 2.2 · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personTable 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis.
Table 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis.
Yet the EA's effects determination for candy darter and its critical habitat relies heavily on physical separation and assimilation capacity to reach 'not likely to adversely affect.' The document does not reconcile this near-total potential stream exposure in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment with its overall benign effects conclusion. The agency should directly address the SF Cherry River UNT catchment's 95.8% potentially affected stream length in its ESA effects rationale or seek formal consultation with USFWS.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“determinations of potential effects to aquatic resources were reached in consideration of the totality of information gained from the watershed-scale assessment (including all six operating principles), the customized project design criteria, and other stipulations that are identified in the EA to govern the use and maintenance of project roads”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 14 14.33 · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40% and 58% respectively from 2019 to 2023.
The economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40% and 58% respectively from 2019 to 2023.
Yet the EA makes no attempt to analyze whether closing FR 249 to public use for ten years and authorizing industrial coal hauling could reduce recreation-based economic activity, harm tourism businesses, or offset the mining employment benefits. The agency should analyze potential adverse effects on the recreation economy before concluding the permit produces net economic benefit.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The EA also discloses the ten years of closed vehicular access to this area, but that non-vehicular recreation would remain. A estimate of the economic impact to the mining industry or recreation industry would be difficult at this granular level as many aspects can affect employment and recreation.”
The agency’s own words, Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗, 14 14.102 · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN found no answer, not yet checked by a personThe EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run and the document acknowledges FR 223 is 'no closer than approximately 100 feet to Bear Run' at points along its length.
The EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run and the document acknowledges FR 223 is 'no closer than approximately 100 feet to Bear Run' at points along its length.
The agency applies a stricter standard to rejected alternatives than to the proposed action without explaining why 100-foot proximity is disqualifying for alternatives but acceptable for the preferred route. The agency should explain this inconsistency or analyze the alternatives under equivalent protective standards.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis

Response to comments: Responses to comments recieved on the EA ↗

Affects public lands

PLAN’s own label for this notice, read from the official notice ↗.

The Forest Service would hand a private operator a ten-year hold on two public forest roads.

What’s at risk

Public access and agency control over 27.2 acres along Forest Roads 223 and 249 on the Monongahela National Forest are at stake. A ten-year special use permit would give one applicant the right to use and maintain these roads, potentially limiting how the public can use them.

If this goes through

If approved, the permit locks in private use of these two forest road corridors for a full decade, constraining public access and Forest Service flexibility for ten years.

Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.

The agency’s own analysis

What the notice says, and what it leaves out

The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action ↗
The agency says
“Therefore, a no action alternative will not be discussed further in this document.”
The EA dismisses the 'no action' alternative on the grounds that the proposal met screening criteria, but NEPA requires a meaningful comparison of alternatives including no action.
Proposed Action ↗
The agency says
“the SUP would authorize larger trucks to use the road, causing an increase in the number of vehicles and size of vehicles on FR 249, resulting in a net increase.”
The EA authorizes up to 125-ton gross vehicle weight coal trucks on FR 249 daily but explicitly states the action will cause 'a net increase' in both number and size of vehicles on a road that is being simultaneously closed to the public.
Candy Darter and Candy Darter Critical Habitat ↗
The agency says
“eDNA surveys conducted by the Forest from 2019-2021 at multiple sample locations along the North Fork Cherry River and in the lower reach of Bear Run did not detect candy darter presence any closer to the project area than approximately 7.5 miles downstream.”
The EA relies on eDNA surveys conducted from 2019 to 2021 and physical capture records from 1995 and 2007 to conclude candy darter is absent from the headwater reaches nearest the project.
Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes ↗
The agency says
“Consultation with federally recognized tribes is ongoing. Initial consultation requests were sent 8/5/2026 to Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Delaware Nation, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca Nation, and Shawnee Tribe.”
The EA states that tribal consultation is 'ongoing' as of the document's August 2026 date, with initial letters sent only on August 5, 2026.
Table 3 ↗
The agency says
“The paired receiving catchment for the Headwaters Spring Creek – HW catchment has the lowest assimilative capacity.”
The EA identifies the Headwaters Spring Creek headwaters catchment as having the lowest assimilative capacity of all catchment pairs, with 73.9% of the combined catchment-and-receiving-catchment area in the higher-risk catchment.
Endangered Species Act ↗
The agency says
“It is recognized that a substantially smaller risk would exist for potential groundwater and surface water contamination associated with accidental spills of hazardous material.”
The EA lists hazardous materials that will be hauled on both roads, including ammonium nitrate fuel oil, blasting supplies, waste oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and hydraulic fluid.
Table 6 ↗
The agency says
“less than 5% of the mapped stream length associated with SF Cherry River – UNT was assessed as having no potential for project-generated direct or indirect effects.”
Table 6 shows that only 4.2% of mapped stream length in the SF Cherry River UNT catchment is unaffected by project road runoff, the lowest of any catchment in the analysis.
Economic and Social Considerations ↗
The agency says
“Visitor spending growth increased from 2019 to 2023 in Greenbrier and Pocahontas Counties by nearly 40% and 58%, respectively.”
The economic analysis details severe poverty and population decline in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties and notes growing recreation and tourism employment, with visitor spending growth of nearly 40% and 58% respectively from 2019 to 2023.
Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ↗
The agency says
“would run parallel to either the South Fork Cherry or North Fork Cherry Rivers (candy darter critical habitat) for approximately half of their routes (often within 100' feet of the rivers).”
The EA rules out two alternative routes partly because they run 'often within 100 feet of the rivers' and would be closer to candy darter critical habitat, yet FR 223 itself runs parallel to Bear Run and the document acknowledges FR 223 is 'no closer than approximately 100 feet to Bear Run' at points along its length.

In the agency’s own words

This project proposes to authorize a ten-year term special use permit (SUP) to Applicant to use/maintain 27.2 acres of National Forest System land (existing Forest Road (FR) 223 and FR 249).

Forest Service project page ↗

More fights that need you

Stop weakened drilling rules across the National Petroleum Reserve in AlaskaCloses today Stop the Nationwide Post-Fire Salvage Plan Lacking Site-Level Analysis3 days left Stop NorthMet Mine from filling Minnesota wetlands and waterways18 days left

All 28 open fights →

Go deeper, free

Scorecard

See how your members of Congress vote on public lands

Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.

Open ↗The map

See the places under active threat

A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.

Open ↗

A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.