In short: The comment establishes the commenter's personal standing through weekly hiking in specific Washington roadless areas (Dark Divide, Teanaway, Selkirk Range, Quinault Rainforest, Lower Gray Wolf River) and documents opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, specifically supporting the No Action alternative.
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
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “protect these intact ecosystems across the nation from being further fragmented”
- “protects our remaining ecosystems contributing to the Nation's biodiversity”
- “lost nearly all of our wild lands. What remains must be protected”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I hike weekly in the Washington Cascades and in eastern WA”
- “places like the Dark Divide, the Teanaway, the Selkirk Range”
- “I get energized and refreshed by spending time hiking trails with mature and old growth forests”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “These areas protect clean water”
- “provide for hunting and fishing and wildfire resilience”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “this change will not decrease wildfires since the current increase in wildfires is most likely due to climate change”
- “Putting roads into what is currently roadless will increase the already high risk of wildfires”
- “wildfire resilience in a time of climate change”
What it names
- Roadless areas
- Dark Divide
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal