Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 25, 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 & recreationist 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 processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System.
I am a part of Gen Z and to be honest, I think it would be more worth killing myself than to live many of my generation believe so especially in America I believe that in this world where we hold no power, my generation, the previous generations have more power than we have ever. What is it worth? What are you guys giving us you sell and break our land you break our bags with work and you continue not to share so explain to my generation what is worth living I am only living to protect land, mother Earth, and only trying to survive instead Of living, many younger generations are now developed into politics when it is you should be caring about the children and not children worrying about us the adults so please let me know why is life worth living when you continue to break us down.
Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. 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.
As a community member, 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.
As someone who lives in California and who has asthma wildfires continue to pollute the air as natural burning isn’t bad but when it’s caused by unregulated fires due to global warming it damages, the soils fertility insects also have the right to live.
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.
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. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk.
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.) roadless area(s).
I am particularly concerned about How the land will look regardless of the fact, Teddy Roosevelt once said there are some things that are worth preserving that includes our public land. What many people visit for and as an American I can be proud of saying that we have but within recent years, I’m no longer proud to say to other people that I am American within this country how we treat the land and how we treat our fellow Americans I am quite disgusted and humiliated as regarding to the bugs life movie it takes one grasshopper To make the ant scared, but the ants unite together it is you who will be in fear.
As someone coming from California, I believe That Yosemite should be protective in the Hoover Dam should be brought down. Yes they brought jobs in the 50s but ecologically ruined a natural system if humans are so sentient within the world why can you not believe the damage like you will create for millions of people around the world with climate change? I don’t understand how you continue to deny the climate change is not real when many of our brothers and sisters around the world are affected by it. It’s quite embarrassing and humiliating.
Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative.