Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-443603

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 17, 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
- “safeguards water and traditional livelihoods”
- “provide clean air and clean drinking water”
- “risks polluting these water sources”
- “supports the acequias and traditional irrigation systems”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “use the Pecos for hiking, fishing, and outdoor recreation”
- “sacrifice its beauty and accessibility”
- “shared public resource”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Roads increase wildfire risk”
- “Wildfires are roughly four times more likely to start near roads”
- “raise the risk of a fire that could permanently damage this landscape”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “Destruction is fast; recovery is not”
- “It takes very little time to damage a wilderness area”
- “The Pecos has remained intact because of protections like this one”

What it names

National Forests: Santa Fe National Forest

The comment

Re: Opposition to Rescinding the Roadless Rule in the Pecos Wilderness Area, NM I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule as it applies to the Pecos area of the Santa Fe National Forest. As a New Mexico resident, I ask that this protection remain in place. 1. This land is a shared public resource. Taxpaying residents currently use the Pecos for hiking, fishing, and outdoor recreation. We should not sacrifice its beauty and accessibility for the financial benefit of a few private interests. 2. It safeguards water and traditional livelihoods. The roadless backcountry currently helps provide clean air and clean drinking water, and it supports the acequias and traditional irrigation systems that New Mexico communities have relied on for generations. Opening this area to road construction and development risks polluting these water sources. 3. The value at stake is hard to price, but not hard to lose. Clean water, clean air, and intact traditional irrigation are difficult to quantify in dollars and cents, but replacing them once degraded would be enormously costly, if it is even possible. 4. Roads increase wildfire risk. Wildfires are roughly four times more likely to start near roads. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would raise the risk of a fire that could permanently damage this landscape. 5. Destruction is fast; recovery is not. It takes very little time to damage a wilderness area, but decades to restore one, if restoration is possible at all. The Pecos has remained intact because of protections like this one. We should not undo that now. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule protections for the Pecos area in place. Thank you for considering my comment.