Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-591603

Opposes rescissionA1 strongSubstance 18/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis fails to reconcile a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog with projected net benefits, ignores the legal precedent from the Tenth Circuit upholding the 2001 Rule under the Organic Act, and improperly certifies no significant impact on small entities by spreading losses nationally rather than assessing specific local businesses in roadless areas like El Yunque.

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

Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The agency argues the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority, but that question was litigated and decided”
- “The Tenth Circuit found the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act”
- “I ask that the agency explain the legal basis on which it departs from that holding”
- “Under the principles established in Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency reversing course must account for the reliance its prior policy created”
Water Quality Quantity
- “Rescinding protections for roadless watersheds is not an abstraction in that context”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale”
- “more than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these areas”
- “one that cleans the island's limited water resources”
Cultural Heritage Indigenous
- “It is also historically important Taino land”
- “rescinding its protection would mean losing cultural heritage that cannot be rebuilt once it is gone”
- “The El Toro Area... is land I have been visiting since 1999”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “The agency's own record makes clear that the economic rationale for this proposal cannot bear weight”
- “The Forest Service already carries a road maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning negative $92 million”
- “I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with its own Cost Benefit Analysis”

What it names

National Forests: George Washington National Forest
Roadless areas: El Toro AreaMameyes AreaNorthern Massanutten
Law cited: 28 U.S.C. Section 1291

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests of El Yunque shaped how I understand what wild land means. I grew up hiking there with family and friends, and since moving to the DC area I have continued that life in the forests around me, including the Northern Massanutten in the George Washington National Forest in Virginia. These are the places where I gather with the people I love and connect to where I live. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens that directly, and I oppose it. The agency's own record makes clear that the economic rationale for this proposal cannot bear weight. The record states that "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." We have enough roads in this country, and not enough protected lands that will help safeguard the future of this planet. That is not a sentiment disconnected from economics. The Forest Service already carries a road maintenance backlog of $6.9 billion against an annual road budget of roughly $73 million. I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with its own Cost Benefit 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 negative $92 million to positive $199 million, and that it explain how an action whose own analysis cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying that backlog. The agency argues the 2001 rule exceeded its statutory authority, but that question was litigated and decided. A federal court of appeals held, exercising jurisdiction, and I quote the ruling precisely: "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 Tenth Circuit found the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. I ask that the agency explain the legal basis on which it departs from that holding. I paddle and kayak all summer in my city and participate in regular community science water quality monitoring efforts. This is the water we drink and the places we enjoy. Rescinding protections for roadless watersheds is not an abstraction in that context. The agency's own analysis says roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale, and more than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by these areas. The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. Outfitters, guides, and tour operators are named as affected in the DEIS. The certification reaches its conclusion by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than the businesses actually permitted in affected areas. I ask that the agency withdraw that certification and assess impact on the small entities actually operating in these roadless areas. Puerto Rico holds 2 inventoried roadless areas totaling 23,734 acres. The El Toro Area, 12,584 acres in El Yunque National Forest, is land I have been visiting since 1999. It is also historically important Taino land, and rescinding its protection would mean losing cultural heritage that cannot be rebuilt once it is gone. The Mameyes Area, 11,150 acres in the same forest, is a place I grew up going to, one that cleans the island's limited water resources and provides protection during frequent hurricanes. These forests are not peripheral to my life or to the lives of people in Puerto Rico. They are central to both. The proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" but its Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. Under the principles established in Encino Motorcars and Regents, an agency reversing course must account for the reliance its prior policy created. Twenty-four years of decisions about where to live, how to spend time, where to volunteer, and what places to love are made in the shadow of rules like this one. Northern Massanutten helped me connect to a new home and inspired me to volunteer in natural spaces in my community. That relationship was built in part because the protection existed. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Andrea Contreras San Juan, PR/ Washington, DC