Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 18 submissions in its group. See the letter, its submissions and topics.
Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.
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. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.
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
- Forest Management Wildfire
- “Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it”
- “fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires”
- “The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk”
- Scientific Research Evidence
- “A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes”
- “13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024”
- Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “cause immense harm to our country”
- “our beautiful forests, be marred by these potential roads”
- “remove protections from our public lands”
What it names
- Works cited
- 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6