In short: The comment establishes that specific roadless areas in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and Manti-La Sal National Forests, including White Pine, Mineral Fork, Dog Lake, Elbow Fork, and the Kokopelli trail, are critical for backcountry recreation and municipal water supply, and that the 2024 Yellow Lake Fire was caused by commercial logging rather than a lack of road access.
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
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “backcountry ski all winter”
- “undeveloped character is exactly what makes them worth skiing”
- “no roads, minimal crowding”
- “permanently change the experience that draws people to them”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “municipal watersheds that supply drinking water”
- “Roads are one of the largest sources of sediment and erosion”
- “protect the water quality that hundreds of thousands of people downstream rely on”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “human-caused ignitions are concentrated near roads”
- “ignited by a commercial logging operation, not by a lack of road access”
- “targeted fuels treatment and prescribed fire”
- “already allowed under the existing rule”
What it names
- Roadless areas
- Little CottonwoodWhite Pine
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal