In short: The comment establishes that the proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule is inconsistent with the agency's own DEIS findings regarding bird abundance, wildfire risk, water quality, and economic costs, specifically within the Santa Fe National Forest's Black Canyon, Little Tesuque, Pacheco Canyon, and Juan de Gabaldon Grant areas.
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
- Wildlife Habitat
- “bird richness declines with road presence”
- “fragment exactly the quiet, intact habitat”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
- “real wildlife”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “lies within a watershed that must be protected”
- “Nichols Reservoir is a key municipal water storage area”
- “Roads bring sedimentation, erosion, and contamination risk”
- “drinking water consequences for communities”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “popular for birding, easy hiking, biking, and running”
- “Preserving it for that recreational use is essential”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “place to camp, hike, bird, and enjoy”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land”
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk”
- “data point the other direction”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal