In short: The comment documents the specific ecological and personal significance of the Mt. Baker West area in the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, citing USDA Forest Service 2000 data on watershed integrity to argue that rescinding the Roadless Rule would cause harmful ground disturbance and runoff, and requests the Department decline the rescission action.
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
- Water Quality Quantity
- “Intact roadless landscapes support functional soils, hydrology”
- “Roadless areas anchor the highest-integrity watersheds”
- “Protecting this lifespring from the run off and damage logging causes”
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “food webs that fragmented forests cannot replicate”
- “watersheds with the highest ecological integrity scores”
- “Preserving these spaces aligns with so much that we know about holistic health”
- Public Health Wellbeing
- “impact the decimation of natural spaces has on mental health”
- “source of some of the most profound healing and connection”
- “Logging this land injures me and so many others”
- Cultural Heritage Indigenous
- “shaped by traditions that know the earth as inextricable from our safety and belonging”
- “My spiritual center feels linked with this land”
- “aligns with all the mystery of what we don't yet know”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest