Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 1, 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: Strongly Oppose the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66)
To the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service’s proposal to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected almost 60 million acres of our nation's wildest, undeveloped national forest lands from destructive road building and commercial logging. These remote backcountry areas are critical for preserving clean drinking water for millions of Americans, maintaining unfragmented wildlife habitats, supporting climate resilience, and offering world-class outdoor recreation that holds up our economy.
One such area that has been afforded protection by the Roadless Rule is Washington Pass, just East of the North Cascades National Park. As a hiker, climber, biker, and skier, I have ventured to the Pass in all four seasons to enjoy the beauty of the wild space. Whether scaling the rock faces of the Liberty Bell spire group, or feeling the soaring elation of a ski descent from Silver Star Mountain, the pristine beauty of this place brings joy and fulfillment to my life. Our protection of it for future generations is an embodiment of our values - to recognize, appreciate, and protect the land that imbues our lives with vitality and meaning.
Dismantling these nationwide protections and shifting management to local, fragmented plans will put fragile ecosystems at risk, increase the agency's existing multibillion-dollar road maintenance backlog, and fail to address the root causes of severe wildfires.
Rather than moving forward with this deregulatory repeal, the Forest Service must select the "No Action Alternative" and preserve existing national roadless protections intact.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Jake Mutter