Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 30, 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, Mental Health Clinician to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule).
As a community member, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, 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.
Maintaining public land for the public is also suicide prevention. Access to public lands are critical to the mental health of community members from all walks of life and professions. Veterinarians who provide general and critical ER services to your animal companions are people who access the forest as part of coping with a career that increases suicidal risk. The same for human medical providers: doctors, ER nurses, emergency service workers, first responders, and especially to forest service workers who dedicate their lives to ensuring recreational access.As an individual having grown up in the midwest and east coast, there is no such thing as public land. What a shame to future generations, whose right it is to experience autonomy and freedom in the outdoors. The USA is one of few places in the world that offers wild camping, which folks from all over the world pay substantial currency in ecotourism to experience. The Roadless Rule will undoubtedly jeopardize the peace and freedom there is in the forest, and this will also be detrimental to wildlife species which are vital to human existence.
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, recreator, Mental Health Clinician, 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 increases risk of health issues through daily smoke inhalation, which will increase need for use of health insurance in a system thats already severely comprimised.
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, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, landscape fire restoration, solitude and landscape connectivity, Because all human life relies on the millimons of other living organisms, aka the web of life, all of these values are at risk. One shift to one will ultimately shift all the others, nothing living is fully isolated. The impacts will show generations later,well after the decision makers today areno longer living.Approving the Roadless Rule should allow all future generations to form a class action suit against those making decisions today. Forward thinking and rationing resources that are not infinite is a noble act of humanity at large.. 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 Future impacts this rule will have on future generations because all of our children and grandchildren are counting on us to think about whats left for them.
I completed the Pacific Crest Trail in 201, and what a remarkable privilege it was to experience the migration from South to North, just like wild animals do each year as the seasons change. The Inyo National Forest and wilderness areas throughout are in comparison to the beauty of mountains in the Swiss and Julian Alps. Theres no other place in the country with the same rugged beauty as the Eastern Sierras. People travel worldwide to experience these forests and mountains, without roads.