The Public Record · Docket FS-2025-0001

Read the comments.

Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.

1 unique comments23 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

A1 strong 0
A2 moderate 0
A3 weak 0
A0 none 1

Substance /24

Median 6middle half 6–6 · 1 scored

Topics raised

23 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–20Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-435120
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-435385
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-405347
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-413176
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-413959
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide. Keep wild land wild.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-389757
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-391071
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 13, 2026FS-2025-0001-372287
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 13, 2026FS-2025-0001-372576
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 13, 2026FS-2025-0001-376023
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-343974
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-344333
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-344340
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-344421
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-344507
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-345245
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-348298
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-349632
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-351366
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-371362
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
In Central Oregon, nearly 200,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Deschutes National Forest, Ochoco National Forest, and Crooked River National Grassland have protected wildlife habitat, boosted local economies, and ensured clean drinking water for nearly 25 years. I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate, alter, or weaken the Roadless Rule, which would reduce protections across nearly 45 million acres of public lands managed by the US Forest Service nationwide. And I urge the agency to take the No Action alternative and maintain full Roadless Rule protections for America's wild forests. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is impractical. In Central Oregon, opening roadless areas to logging will not yield a meaningful economic return. Instead, increasing roads will damage recreation areas, scenic views, and wildlife habitat, and eliminate the core reasons people choose to live, work, and recreate in Central Oregon. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is dangerous. More roads also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are four times more likely to ignite near roads. More roads will also degrade drinking watersheds. In Central Oregon, the Bend Municipal Watershed begins in the headwaters of Bridge Creek and Tumalo Creek in the Deschutes National Forest. Losing Roadless protections will threaten water quality for fish species and the drinking water supply for more than 100,000 people in Bend, and tens of millions of people across the country. Rescinding the Roadless Rule makes our forests less resilient. Roads spread invasive species, disrupt wildlife corridors, and erode forest resilience in the face of rapidly shifting wildfire regimes. Let’s abandon this misguided effort to repeal the Roadless Rule and instead strengthen protections for America’s roadless forests for all the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and habitat for biodiversity they provide.
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

Please cite us. This analysis is the intellectual property of Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser. You are welcome to reproduce it — every reproduction must include this citation:

Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser, “2001 Roadless Rule Revision — Substantive Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. A large language model (an open-weight Qwen3.8 model) reads each substantive comment and copies, word for word, the passages that carry its analytical gap, evidence, request, alternative and connection to the place; it returns no scores. Code grades those passages 0–3 on eight dimensions — evidence, legal grounding, engagement with the environmental analysis, analytical gaps, alternatives, specific requests, position, and local knowledge — with legal grounding taken from a citation scan, not the model. For the strongest tenth on each side, the copied passages are checked against the comment and shown as exhibits. A comment counts as “substantive” when it clears a floor filter — it must show at least one substantive signal (a named entity, a specific citation, a stated analytical deficiency, or first-person testimony), which screens out one-line and purely conclusory submissions before any model scoring.

The full method. Every step, why it is done that way, its known limits and a glossary: Methodologies →

The data. The full canonical dataset — every comment on Docket FS-2025-0001 — is available from Regulations.gov's bulk download, the canonical source: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload. Download the CSV directly (Regulations.gov keeps this link working until October 18, 2026): https://bulk-downloads.regulations.gov/mv4-z8fw-q5jx.csv.

Roadless.org — analysis of the public comment docket.
Media inquiries welcome — nicholas@wanderingnature.com.