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 comments11 submissions
Position
  • Opposes rescission 100.0%
Answerability
  • A1 strong 0
  • A2 moderate 0
  • A3 weak 0
  • A0 none 1
Substance /24
Median 3middle half 3–3 · 1 scored
Topics raised
Count
Position
Answerability
Substance /24
Order
11 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–11Clear all filters
  1. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-482273
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  2. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-406194
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  3. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-395283
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  4. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-395459
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  5. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-395669
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  6. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-396189
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  7. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-396622
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  8. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-397588
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  9. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-397848
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  10. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-400134
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    Full analysis of this comment →
  11. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-401001
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.

    I am submitting this comment in opposition to the USDA's proposed rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket No. FS-2025-0001). For 25 years, this rule has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest from road-building and commercial logging, preserving drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, migration corridors for elk and mule deer, and habitat for imperiled species like salmon, wolves, and grizzly bears. The agency's own draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that rescinding this rule will not meaningfully reduce wildfire risk and will cause lasting harm to wildlife and water resources, while failing to generate enough timber revenue to offset those losses. Repealing a rule that the agency's own data does not support is bad policy and pure politics. I urge the Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule fully intact.
    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.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless