In short: The comment establishes specific site-level opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for seven named areas in California and Oregon, documenting local conditions such as road instability and fire history, and requesting a site-specific environmental analysis and a DEIS alternative that retains the rule's protections.
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
- Wildlife Habitat
- “Many species of wildlife need pristine areas such as these to thrive”
- “survival of the fish and wildlife that depend on them”
- “Roadless areas are necessary to maintain clean water... and for the survival of the fish and wildlife”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “maintain clean water for municipal water supplies”
- “Roads, mining and logging are pollution sources”
- “We don't need additional sources of pollution”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike, backpack, camp and trail run in Wilderness and Roadless Areas”
- “These unspoiled areas are important to me”
- “very popular area for hiking, trail running and backpacking”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “Roadless Areas are not a significant impediment to fire suppression”
- “Roadless areas tend to be healthier and more fire resistant”
- “Most fires start along roads”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal