In short: The comment establishes that the commenter resides adjacent to the Cibola National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness in New Mexico, and opposes the removal of the Roadless Rule based on cited evidence that roads increase wildfire risk, existing road maintenance costs are unsustainable, and roadless areas provide critical habitat.
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
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “wildfire management will not be improved and that wildfires will in fact increase”
- “Wildfire risk is documented to be higher in areas with roads”
- “fire mitigation status of the national forests are of critical interest”
- Economic Impact Fiscal
- “repealing the Roadless Rule would be fiscally irresponsible”
- “roads that the Forest Service already is responsible for needed $8.6 billion in maintenance”
- “irresponsible to build further roads when the ones already in existence cannot be maintained”
- Wildlife Habitat
- “animals rely on these areas without roads”
- “leave 2% of the ecosystem intact”
- “further reduction of crucial habitat”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “first choice for recreation is always to enjoy the public recreation lands”
- “We hike, backpack, fish, hunt, cross country ski, downhill ski, camp, and mountain bike”
- “Our recreational use of the national forest... may both be impacted by wildfires”
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: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisEvidenceRequestAlternative