In short: The comment establishes that the DEIS lacks scientific integrity by failing to reference the T2 conservation status and documented population decline severity for the Mount Rainier White-tailed Ptarmigan in the Sawtooth area, and that the agency's reduction of 99% public opposition to a bare percentage without substantive engagement of specific content categories (water quality, carbon storage, invasive species) violates the requirement for reasoned consideration under Vermont Yankee and the APA.
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
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreates in multiple roadless areas”
- “peaceful, serene environment that would be destroyed”
- “retreat and tend to my mental and physical health”
- “incredible wild, beautiful spaces”
- Wildlife Habitat
- “Mount Rainier White-tailed Ptarmigan”
- “Roads fragment intact habitat”
- “direct loss of habitat”
- “indirect loss of habitat (by the fragmentation of an ecosystem)”
- Governance Policy Process
- “Failure to Substantively Respond to Content of Majority-Opposition Comments”
- “violates the requirement that agencies give reasoned consideration to public comment”
- “arbitrary and capricious under APA”
- “request a substantive, topic-by-topic response”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “reroute surface and subsurface water flow”
- “pollution of off-site waters”
- “sediment delivery that is long-lasting and cumulative”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidence