In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would specifically impact the Sandwich Range in the White Mountain National Forest by enabling road construction that fragments habitat for federally listed species like the Northern Long-eared Bat and Canada Lynx, while citing scientific data on tree damage and public support for maintaining the area as roadless.
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
- “federally endangered Northern Long-eared Bat”
- “federally threatened Canada Lynx”
- “disruption of valuable habits for plants and animals”
- “resident birds (including rare species of thrushes)”
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “diverse biological species that intertwine into a critical ecosystem”
- “natural barrier to reduce the advancement of invasive species”
- “appreciated the current biodiversity and unique undisturbed discoveries”
- “hidden glacial erratics tucked away in older growth forests”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “provides respite but also a reserve for valuable natural resources”
- “scenic views through all four seasons”
- “welcoming respectful visitors”
- “walked the same public land for years”
- Public Opinion Support
- “more than 99.8% of submitters opposed the rescission”
- “76% of likely voters support the Roadless Rule”
- “bipartisan backing from 71% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 80% of independents”
- “More than 100 members of Congress have co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act”
Attachments
1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal