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 comments43 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 7middle half 7–7 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-416056
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-376837
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-384067
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-386481
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-397754
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-344520
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-347712
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-351317
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-352986
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354977
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-356828
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-359463
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-361488
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-363364
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-367376
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-368323
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-369658
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-371385
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-339978
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-341232
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, As an ecologist, I am writing to urge the U.S. Forest Service to select Alternative 1 and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule without modification. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has provided critical protections for nearly 45 million acres of relatively intact national forest lands. From an ecological perspective, these areas represent some of the most valuable remaining landscapes for maintaining biodiversity, ecological connectivity, watershed function, and natural resilience. Roadless areas provide benefits that extend far beyond their boundaries. They protect headwaters and contribute to clean, reliable water supplies; provide essential habitat for wildlife; maintain large, relatively undisturbed landscapes; and offer opportunities for recreation and scientific study. Their ecological value is particularly important at a time when habitat fragmentation, climate change, invasive species, and biodiversity loss are placing increasing pressure on natural systems. Rescinding or weakening the Roadless Rule would increase the risk of ecological fragmentation by expanding roads and associated development into currently intact landscapes. Roads can have long-lasting effects on ecosystems, including habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access for invasive species, altered hydrology and erosion, wildlife disturbance, and increased noise and light pollution. Additional industrial development, including logging and oil and gas activities, could further compromise the ecological integrity and connectivity of these landscapes. Maintaining large, connected, and relatively undisturbed ecosystems is also an important component of ecological resilience. As climate conditions continue to change, wildlife and plant communities will need the ability to shift across landscapes and respond to changing environmental conditions. Protecting roadless areas helps preserve the landscape-scale connectivity necessary for these ecological processes. At a minimum, I strongly urge the Forest Service to extend the public comment period to at least 90 days and to hold public hearings throughout the regions and communities affected by this proposal. A decision with potentially significant and long-term consequences for millions of acres of public land deserves a robust, transparent, and geographically inclusive public process. Based on the ecological importance of these lands and the potential consequences of increased development and fragmentation, this proposal does not have my support. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to select the no-action alternative and uphold the 2001 Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Kelsey Yule 325 E Drachman St Tucson, AZ 85705-7443 kelsey.yule@gmail.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.