Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 14, 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.
Subject: Opposition to the Proposal to Rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind protections on more than 45 million acres of roadless national forest lands. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) and keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
I honestly can’t even believe this is even a debate again after just 25 years of protection. It feels like we are living through a real-life version of the “The Lorax” (if you haven’t read it, write me and I will send you a copy). The scary part is that once we’ve squandered all of our world’s natural resources we can’t just pack up and move on to somewhere else like the Once-ler’s did.
As a resident of New York, I am highly concerned about how this rollback threatens the public lands of the Northeast as well as the rest of our country. In a densely populated state like New York, intact, mature, roadless patches of federal forest provide irreplaceable ecological "islands." They are primary strongholds for carbon sequestration, local watershed filtration, and habitat for deep-woods wildlife that cannot thrive near road noise or commercial timber clearings.
Leaning into commercial exploitation under the guise of wildfire management is fundamentally flawed and financially irresponsible. The U.S. Forest Service already faces a multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog for its existing road network. Subsidizing the construction of new timber roads into remote areas to benefit private logging operations forces federal taxpayers to shoulder an unnecessary infrastructure liability, all while increasing both human-caused environmental destruction and wildfire risks near the new access paths.
These unmolested natural sanctuaries should be a point of pride that we as Americans can showcase to the world for generations; they should NOT be used up for short term financial gain. I personally would love for my children and grandchildren to be able to visit these natural wonders and see what the world used to look like before we cleared everything to make room for our shopping centers.
I strongly urge the agency to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule protections and safeguard these public lands for the public good, rather than private commercial gain.
Sincerely,
Theofani Baktidy
Hobart, NY 13788