In short: The comment documents that the draft EIS inadequately analyzes the impacts of rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule by deferring species and habitat analysis, underestimating climate and water quality costs, and failing to demonstrate that the Rule blocks necessary forest health management, while citing specific local impacts in the White Mountain 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
A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.
Owed an answer on Analytical gap, Alternative.
Standard dismissals it defeats
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “adversely affect 327 species and 71 critical habitats”
- “threatens wildlife, water and land resources”
- “preserve... natural resources, parks, and forrests”
- “wholesale raping of them”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “Neither figure counts water quality”
- “threatens... water... resources”
- “protection... from harm, injury, damage or loss”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “cost recreationists about $6.1 million per year”
- “My family uses the White Mountain National Forrest on a daily basis”
- “needs not more roads, lumber or other resource extraction”
- Climate Carbon Storage
- “Climate and carbon impacts receive only cursory treatment”
- “Neither figure counts... carbon storage”
What it names
- Roadless areas
- White Mountain
- Works cited
- Balch et al. 2017Balch et al. 2017
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal