Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov
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 eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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 decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe 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 shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule).
As a community member, 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.
I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, and recreation access. 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.
I am particularly concerned about the Roadless Rule becauseI 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. ), and Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am writing to urge you to stand up for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and oppose efforts to eliminate these protections from our National Forests.The Eastern Sierra is not simply undeveloped land waiting to be developed. The mountains and forests surrounding communities such as Bridgeport, Lee Vining, Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, and Big Pine are part of an extraordinary landscape that supports wildlife, watersheds, recreation, tourism, and the rural communities that depend upon these lands.
The Inyo National Forest alone contains hundreds of thousands of acres that have been identified as inventoried roadless areas. These are places where keeping unnecessary new roads and large-scale development out of the landscape has helped preserve relatively intact forests, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and the character of the Eastern Sierra.
Consider the Glass Mountains and surrounding Eastern Sierra landscape. This area contains Jeffrey pine and mixed-conifer forests, high-elevation subalpine habitat, pinyon woodlands, streams and drainage systems, and important wildlife habitat. These lands are also connected to the outdoor recreation and natural beauty that draw people from around California and the country to the Eastern Sierra.
Once an undeveloped landscape is fragmented by permanent roads and industrial development, we cannot simply put it back the way it was.
I understand that our National Forests must be actively and responsibly managed, including addressing wildfire risk. But responsible forest management should not require eliminating nationwide protections that have existed for more than two decades. We should be looking for solutions that protect communities from wildfire while also protecting clean water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and remaining undeveloped public lands.
These places belong to the American people. They should not be sacrificed for short-term commercial interests at the expense of future generations.
When someone drives Highway 395 through Bridgeport, Lee Vining, Mammoth, Bishop, and Big Pine, they are experiencing something increasingly rare: vast landscapes where mountains, forests, wildlife, and open space still dominate the horizon. That is part of what makes the Eastern Sierra special—and once we lose that character, we may never get it back.
I oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and advocate for continued strong protection of inventoried roadless areas in the Eastern Sierra and throughout our National Forest System.
Please protect these public lands not only for those of us who value them today, but for the children and generations of Americans who deserve the opportunity to experience them tomorrow.