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 comments70 submissions
Position
  • Opposes rescission 100.0%
Answerability
  • A1 strong 0
  • A2 moderate 0
  • A3 weak 0
  • A0 none 1
Substance /24
Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored
Topics raised
Count
Position
Answerability
Substance /24
Order
70 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–20Clear all filters
  1. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607236
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Lucille Salmon 5822 George Island Landing Rd Stockton, MD 21864-2004 lsalmon52@comcast.net
    Full analysis of this comment →
  2. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-612486
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Michael Barb 2401 Euclid Ave Unit 216 Charlotte, NC 28203-6779 michaelrbarb@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  3. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-572377
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, kjarvis Jarvis 2550 S Main St South Salt Lake, UT 84115-3001 kjarvis@rei.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  4. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-574453
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Alex Wilson 3059 S Connor St Salt Lake City, UT 84109-2455 alexanderbb2006@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  5. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-585711
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Caroline Louw 17040 160th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-8667 carolionraar@yahoo.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  6. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-586966
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Robin Jenks Vanderlip 10208 Battle Colors Ln Berlin, MD 21811-3411 robinjenks@yahoo.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  7. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-587554
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, William Delaney 16217 NW 202nd St Alachua, FL 32615-8063 wdelane@rei.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  8. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-595350
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Jose Pauly Santa Cruz 333 Encinal St Santa Cruz, CA 95060 josepauly.ing@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  9. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-552935
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, David Loeb 309 Florence Ave Apt 221N Jenkintown, PA 19046-2691 dvd.lb22@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  10. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-556862
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Timothy David Nelson 2535 Overlook Ct New Freedom, PA 17349-9168 tdnelso1984@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  11. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-566492
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, steven Oien 1633 209th Pl NE Sammamish, WA 98074-4212 steveoien2015@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  12. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-566566
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Elizabeth CASTELA 6262 E Brown Rd Unit 24 Mesa, AZ 85205-4845 liz.castela118@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  13. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-533709
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Ethan Storms 18492 172nd Ct SE Renton, WA 98058-9576 estorms@rei.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  14. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-540662
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Kara Myers 11821 Elk Head Range Rd Littleton, CO 80127-3708 kara543@msn.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  15. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-541522
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Rebecca Johnson 12123 Coral Sea St NE Blaine, MN 55449-7504 rtylerjohn@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  16. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-541809
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Eilien Van Patten 5715 NE 19th Ave Portland, OR 97211-5550 vanpattene5@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  17. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-546981
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Susan Tyler 801 9th St SE Auburn, WA 98002-6234 suewatergirl@comcast.net
    Full analysis of this comment →
  18. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-550041
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Andrew Crabtree 14847 W Lake Ridge Dr Eagle River, AK 99577-9259 crabtreeandrew2@gmail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  19. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-526143
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Melissa Tozzi 1912 Homestead Duquesne Rd West Mifflin, PA 15122-3668 tozzimelissa@ymail.com
    Full analysis of this comment →
  20. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-526148
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW

    Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 70 submissions in its group.

    The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Melissa Tozzi 1912 Homestead Duquesne Rd West Mifflin, PA 15122-3668 tozzimelissa@ymail.com
    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: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload.

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