In short: The comment places on the record that the agency's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule contradicts its own prior findings on wildfire ignition rates (DEIS Table 21), fails to demonstrate a net economic benefit given a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog, and ignores the legal precedent from the Tenth Circuit affirming the rule's statutory authority 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, 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
- 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”
- “DEIS Table 21 reports far higher fire density on roaded land”
- Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production”
- “Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue... against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “agency is already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog on its existing road system”
- Legal Regulatory Framework
- “state-by-state scheme that the Ninth Circuit rejected”
- “Tenth Circuit held... the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted”
- “agency must state on the record what legal basis it has for any position contrary to that holding”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “1,522 municipal water intakes sitting in watersheds that contain affected roadless areas”
- “watersheds draining into and around the Winema”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest