In short: The comment establishes that the commenter has a direct personal interest in specific roadless areas within the Coronado National Forest, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF, and Ocala NF, and documents specific locations where they recreate, including Mount Olympus, Mill Canyon Peak, Butterfly, and Upper Rincon.
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
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “avid hiker and mountain biker”
- “lose my favorite places to hike, camp, and mountain bike”
- “devastated to lose the Mount Olympus, Mill Canyon Peak, Butterfly and Upper Rincon roadless areas”
- “well-preserved public lands available for recreation”
- Scientific Research Evidence
- “best available science suggests that Roadless areas in fact have significantly lower ignition density”
- “large body of recent research that finds increased fire risk near roads”
- “ignores the best available science”
- “Aplet et al., 2026”
- Wildlife Habitat
- “important habitat for rare, endangered and special status species”
- “Mexican spotted owl, ocelots, black bear”
- “ecosystem services”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “essential water resources for cities and towns”
- “drinking water supply for Salt Lake City”
- “contamination from road building”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal