Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-430385

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 16, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
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.
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.

Topics

Water Quality Quantity
- “watersheds where we get nearly half of our drinking water”
- “don't want these areas, or my drinking water, polluted by mine runoff or industrial waste”
- “safeguard our sources of drinking water”
Wildlife Habitat
- “harmful to local wildlife species”
- “carves up wildlife habitat into smaller "islands"”
- “hurts species like mule deer and elk that depend on migratory routes”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “federal government's own wildfire data undercuts that claim”
- “most wildfires start near roads and are human-caused”
- “avoid increasing wildfire risk”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “incur more costs by making the forest service create and maintain even more roads”
- “way behind on maintaining the forest roads that already exist”
- “avoid increasing the financial burden on the U.S. Forest Service”

What it names

National Forests: Santa Fe National Forest

The comment

I live in Santa Fe, in northern New Mexico. I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The roadless areas within the Santa Fe National Forest contain the watersheds where we get nearly half of our drinking water. I don't want these areas, or my drinking water, polluted by mine runoff or industrial waste. Creating new roads would be harmful to local wildlife species that are economically important to northern New Mexico. Whether roads are paved or not, there's plenty of evidence that wild animals avoid them. Creating new roads effectively carves up wildlife habitat into smaller "islands" that support fewer animals. And it hurts species like mule deer and elk that depend on migratory routes for their survival. Those species help local businesses by drawing hunters, fishermen, hikers and campers to our area. I've read claims that the roads are needed to help in fighting wildfires. The federal government's own wildfire data undercuts that claim: it shows that most wildfires start near roads and are human-caused. Finally, it's not clear why this administration, with its stated concern for government spending, would want to incur more costs by making the forest service create and maintain even more roads - especially when they're way behind on maintaining the forest roads that already exist. Instead of rescinding the roadless rule, I'd recommend leaving it as is. Doing so would help safeguard our sources of drinking water, would avoid increasing wildfire risk (a matter of deep concern, given the devastating wildfires that we've seen in the Sangre de Cristo mountains), and would avoid increasing the financial burden on the U.S. Forest Service. Please leave the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact.