Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-309146

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 3, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is internally inconsistent with its own DEIS findings on wildfire ignition rates and economic cost-benefit analysis, specifically regarding the Pecos Wilderness and Santa Fe National Forest, and requests the agency to reconcile these discrepancies and reassess small business impacts.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Topics

  • 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 its own DEIS Table 21”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “Pecos Wilderness and the Santa Fe National Forest are where I go for solitude and spiritual connection”
    • “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
    • “outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
    • “Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue... against recreation losses”
    • “expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
    • “saw firsthand how much erosion, trash, and damage come along with roads”
    • “A road changes all of that”

What it names

National Forests
Carson National ForestSanta Fe National Forest
Roadless areas
Grace TractPecos

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapLegal

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Pecos Wilderness and the Santa Fe National Forest are where I go for solitude and spiritual connection. I photograph landscapes in recovery, change over time, the slow work that intact ground does when it is left to heal. I want those places managed so they remain functional, intact ecosystems into the future. I am filing this comment to oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, and I am asking the agency to answer specific questions that its own record raises. I lost my house in a wildfire that started on the national forest. That is not an abstraction for me. It is also why the agency's stated rationale for this rescission troubles me so deeply. The proposal leans on wildfire and fuels management as a justification for opening roadless areas to roads, but the agency's own record says the opposite. The agency has found that "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 am asking the agency to explain in this proceeding why the proposal departs from that finding, and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I also helped with a roadless area inventory effort and saw firsthand how much erosion, trash, and damage come along with roads. That work gave me a ground-level understanding of what roads actually do to landscape. The areas I am writing through, Grace Tract at 999 acres and Maestas at 475 acres in the Santa Fe National Forest, and the Pecos roadless area at 13,436 acres in the Carson National Forest, are places I know through photography and on foot. New Mexico holds 120 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,505,508 acres. Across the Southwestern region, which includes New Mexico, 739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. A road changes all of that, and the inventory work I participated in showed me exactly how. The economic case for rescission does not survive contact with the agency's own numbers. 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." Against those figures, the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service, against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit. The agency should explain on the record how a proposal whose own analysis cannot demonstrate positive returns justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The small-business certification in the supporting regulatory analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading a $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas. The proposed rule itself certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides, and tour operators as affected, and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in these areas, not the national average firm. Finally, the proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. I have organized parts of my work, my photography of landscapes in recovery, around the protections this rule provides. This comment is one of those reliance interests. The agency should identify and weigh what it finds in the record it receives, including this letter. Sincerely, Kathryn M Las Dispensas, NM

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless