Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 6 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.
In short: The comment establishes the commenter's standing as a resident of Clayton, Georgia, who regularly visits the Chattahoochee and Nantahala National Forests, and documents their specific concern that rescinding the Roadless Rule would harm local water quality, wildlife habitat, and wildfire resilience in the Southeast.
Scored with own additions — A family member whose own text beyond the shared letter was scored and combined with the letter's score.
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
- “outdoor recreationist, avid outdoorsman and skier”
- “enjoy hiking, skiing, and exploring the rivers”
- “pristine forests”
- “threaten not only my experiences”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “protects backcountry landscapes that provide clean water”
- “damages water quality”
- “exploring the rivers”
- Wildlife Habitat
- “wildlife habitat”
- “fragments forests”
- “undeveloped for future generations”
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “preventing unnecessary new road construction that fragments forests, which increases wildfire risks”
- “allows fire suppression and necessary management”
- “climate resilience”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal