Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-495606

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 14/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's draft environmental impact statement contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition rates and bird abundance in the Pecos roadless area, fails to quantify specific local impacts on small entities and water quality, and neglects to weigh reliance interests despite soliciting them.

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

Wildlife Habitat
- “migrating songbirds”
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
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”
- “Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement”
Water Quality Quantity
- “739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “Road construction in roadless areas alters hydrology”
- “increases sedimentation and degrades the watershed conditions”
- “municipal and recreational users alike depend on”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I paddle the Chama”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
- “outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “arranged my use of public land... around the expectation that the 2001 rule would remain in place”

What it names

National Forests: Carson National Forest
Roadless areas: Pecos

The comment

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Chama River and the Pecos roadless country in Carson National Forest are wild and timeless, and that quality is precisely what this rescission would put at risk. I paddle the Chama and I watch migrating songbirds, and the roadless character of the landscapes surrounding that water and those forests is not incidental to what I find there. It is the thing itself. New Mexico holds 120 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,505,508 acres. The Pecos roadless area in Carson National Forest covers 13,436 of those acres. The birds I go looking for, all the migrating songbirds moving through forested habitat, depend on exactly the conditions that roadless designation protects. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. I watch those birds in places like the Pecos country because the roads are not there. The agency must explain what its analysis concludes about bird abundance and species presence in the Pecos roadless area specifically if new road access is permitted, and it must answer that question in the record before any final action. The proposal justifies rescission in part on wildfire and fuels management grounds. The agency's own record states: "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." The agency cannot claim that opening roadless areas to road construction will reduce fire hazard while its own findings say the opposite. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement. That data is specific. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads. The gap between those two numbers is not marginal. The agency must quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against whatever reduction in wildfire hazard the proposal claims to produce. Across the Southwestern region, which includes New Mexico, 739 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. I paddle the Chama and I understand what watershed integrity means to the water in that river. Road construction in roadless areas alters hydrology, increases sedimentation and degrades the watershed conditions that municipal and recreational users alike depend on. The agency has not demonstrated that the benefits of rescission outweigh those documented watershed risks, and I expect a response in the record on that point. The proposed rule 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. That certification is reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the operators actually holding permits in the affected areas. The agency must withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless 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 arranged my use of public land, including the Pecos country and the Chama watershed, around the expectation that the 2001 rule would remain in place. That reliance is real. An agency changing course is obligated to identify and weigh the reliance interests its prior policy created. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one. Sincerely, Sarah Bensinger Los Angeles resident and (New Mexico frequent visitor)