In short: The comment establishes that the proposal's justification for rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts the agency's own findings in DEIS Table 21 regarding fire density on roaded lands, ignores the Tenth Circuit's ruling on statutory authority, and fails to weigh the specific reliance interests of recreationists in Sequoia National Forest.
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, Evidence, 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
- “Camping at Kings Canyon, swimming in rivers, hiking into quiet country”
- “places where water is present and accessible”
- “shaped my recreation, my photography, and my sense of what public land promises”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas”
- “rivers and lakes I photograph... draw from these same watersheds”
- “water is present and accessible”
- Legal Regulatory Framework
- “The Tenth Circuit... held: 'we REVERSE the district court's order'”
- “found that it did [fall within authority]”
- “agency changing course must grapple with the reliance its prior policy created”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal