In short: The comment establishes that local landowners adjacent to the Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests oppose the repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, citing specific ecological threats to grizzly bear and lynx habitats, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the Blue Copper Project located 1/4 mile from their property.
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
- Wildlife Habitat
- “support wildlife habitat for grizzly bears”
- “Canada lynx use these forests as a breeding ground”
- “Roadless areas protect wildlife habitat, biodiversity and migration corridors”
- Water Quality Quantity
- “depend on springs to irrigate our pastures”
- “prevent pollution and soil erosion into waterways”
- Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “We hunt in the national forest, recreate there as well”
- “value of having intact backcountry recreations”
- “Continental Divide National Scenic Trail goes through these forests”
- Resource Development Extraction
- “opening up the USA to developing roads for logging, mining extraction permits”
- “Blue Copper Project is currently asking for a permit to extract metals”
- “opening up mine extraction permits, logging and again, mines”
The comment
Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Analytical gapEvidenceLegal