In short: The comment documents specific recreational sites in the Okanogan-Wenatchee and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests and requests the Forest Service retain the 2001 Roadless Rule, citing personal recreation history, potential loss of access, wildfire risks, and the fiscal burden of maintaining 380,000 miles of existing roads.
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
- “loss of access, or increased costs and barriers to access”
- “irreplaceable opportunities for recreation, solitude, and connection with wild places”
- “degrade both the natural character and recreational value of these areas”
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “expose more of these relatively untouched places to the same problems”
- “alter the natural processes that make these canyons unique”
- “irreversible damage to the places where I recreate”
- Economic Impact Fiscal
- “fiscally irresponsible to expand the active road network”
- “limited resources”
- “substantial challenges maintaining its existing road network”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “potential for human-caused ignitions that roads can bring”
- “fully explore and utilize those existing wildfire-management options”
- “extreme seasonal flooding, unstable log jams”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal