In short: The comment establishes that the agency's own records and cost-benefit analyses contradict the proposed rescission by identifying roads as drivers of wildlife mortality and wildfire risk, showing a net economic loss, and citing prior legal and regulatory findings that support the 2001 Roadless Rule.
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, 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
- “wildlife I look for when I am out, moose and bears and elk”
- “increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat”
- “preserving old-growth winter shelter”
- “roads as a driver of their mortality and displacement”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Three decades of fishing these places”
- “I hike across Virginia, North Carolina, Montana and Colorado”
- “prefer to maintain the pristine nature of that area”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “reconcile this proposal with its own ignition data”
- Legal Regulatory Framework
- “Tenth Circuit has already spoken”
- “found the 2001 rule within the authority Congress granted”
- “Ninth Circuit reviewed that substitution and found it wanting”
- “explain its legal basis”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestLegal