Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-464800

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes specific local knowledge of roadless areas in the Bridgeport, Lee Vining, Mammoth, Bishop, Big Pine, Lone Pine, and Lake Tahoe forest districts, arguing that these specific locations require protection from road expansion to preserve wildlife habitat, connectivity, and recreation access.

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
- “wildlife habitat and connectivity”
- “sensitive/endangered/threatened species”
- “biodiversity”
- “wildlife that can comfortably live in these protected lands does not deserve to be further disturbed”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road”
- “more roads mean more fires”
- “Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments”
- “Adding more roads... will increase the number of people and number of cars (fuels)”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreation access”
- “solitude and landscape connectivity”
- “public lands user, recreationist”
- “These areas serve as a reminder of what used to exist before colonization”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “soil erosion”
- “degrade our ecosystem”

What it names

Roadless areas: Aurora CraterCoyote NorthGlass MountainIndependence CreekLaurel McgeeLog Cabin SaddlebagMono CratersMt. HicksRock CreekSan JoaquinSoldier CanyonTioga LakeWheeler Ridge

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeAnalytical gapEvidenceRequestAlternativeLegal

My name is Kassie Quackenbush. I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Wildlife rehabilitator to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, Off-road enthusiast, tax-payer, and an American citizen, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. These lands belong to the citizens and indigenous people of this country. They deserve equal protection across the nation under federal law, so they can be preserved for future generations and for our wildlife. As a community member, recreator, Wildlife rehabilitator, off-road enthusiast, tax payer,, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. Adding more roads to areas that are generally protected from human disturbance will increase the number of people and number of cars (fuels) in those protected areas. This is clearly going to cause more fire, not less. If anything, we need to be spending this (tax payer) money on improving our fire departments, our forest service, and our plans for how to mitigate and fight future fires. The wildlife that can comfortably live in these protected lands does not deserve to be further disturbed by construction and removal of their resources. Removing parts of a forest will not help protect it. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, and the increased burden put on first responders to deal with the consequences of these actions. Wildlife rehabilitators do not receive federal funding, and will be directly impacted by the number of animals that are injured due to these decisions. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands put these values at risk. Everything listed here is important, as everything is connected. When we start to degrade our ecosystem, which is already struggling, we sign away our rights to a healthy and happy future. What happened to life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This is clearly a move to make profits for the few by taking from the many, and the many are far more important - this includes all the inhabitants of this nations, animals and plants as well. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.), and Lake Tahoe forest district roadless areas.These areas serve as a reminder of what used to exist before colonization and industrialization of our country. People lived in harmony and reciprocity with this land long before we settled the USA. These areas do not need more roads for extraction, they need to remain protects and our tax payer funding needs to go to improving their protections, not removing them. These lands give us a sense of what it really means to be human. That we are not in control of everything, that the earth and all of her inhabitants exist without any need for human presence. We are part of the web, not the masters of it. I spent so much of my life living in these wild lands, and I am horrified that the money I am forced to pay the government could be put to destroying the places that kept me safe for so long. Don't repeal the roadless rule.