In short: The comment documents the specific local impacts of the proposed Roadless Rule rescission in Central Oregon, citing 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes, Ochoco, and Crooked River units, and challenges the DEIS's claim that the action restores local decision-making power.
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
- “ensured clean drinking water for 25 years”
- “degrade my community's drinking watershed”
- “threaten water quality for fish”
- “protecting the clean water”
- Wildlife Habitat
- “protected wildlife habitat”
- “disrupt wildlife habitat”
- “spread invasive species”
- “biodiversity that roadless forests provide”
- Governance Policy Process
- “zero public meetings, shortened comment periods”
- “disregard for the public input received during scoping”
- “undemocratic and irresponsible”
- “most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rule making”
- Climate Carbon Storage
- “make our forests less resilient in this time of climate change”
- “increasing wildfire regimes”
- “climate resilience”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal