In short: The comment documents that the agency's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fails to reconcile its own prior findings on wildfire risk and economic costs, and lacks a clear legal basis to overturn the Tenth Circuit's validation of the 2001 rule under the Organic Act and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.
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
A1 strong: Must be answered — it names the law.
Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Legal.
Standard dismissals it defeats
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
Topics
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Thru-hiking the entire Continental Divide Trail changed my life”
- “Hunting means recreating on our public land”
- “Public lands are an amazing way to calm the mind”
- “Opening these areas to roads ends that”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “headwaters to the Colorado River”
- “supplies water to 40 million people”
- “explain clearly what this proposal does to that water supply”
- “325 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Ninth Circuit identified serious deficiencies in that approach”
- “constitutional and procedural deficiencies the courts identified”
- “Tenth Circuit addressed that directly”
- “held the 2001 rule was within authority Congress granted”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal