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 comments31 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

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-598945
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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 Sincerely, Mark Madler 1010 Adams Cir Boulder, CO 80303-1831 madlermark@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-565446
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Christian Funes Sincerely, Christian Funes 717 Vernon Dr Tunnel Hill, GA 30755-9554 christianfunesjr@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-566079
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Jessica Lindsten 2990 Maesner St Eugene, OR 97404-1823 prisimaddict@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-535607
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Bart Cutler 1774 N 350 W Sunset, UT 84015-2714 bartoncutler@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-536736
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Kristen Coates 148 Dodge Rd Hebron, NH 03241 kristenkeatingcoates@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-529177
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Adriana Sanchez 468 Helman St Ashland, OR 97520-1142 unadriana.sanchez@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-529967
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Patty McMillin 1463 Orchard Hills Pkwy Apt 206 Traverse City, MI 49686-1595 Misspattypetcare@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 30, 2026FS-2025-0001-523831
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Gabriel Martinez Parente 10600 Six Pines Dr Apt 430 Spring, TX 77380-1470 gabrielmartinezparente@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 30, 2026FS-2025-0001-524292
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Samuel Ledford 3237 Eagle Ave Valdez, AK 99686 ledford.sam7@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-507322
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, JOSEPH FORLER 1112 Foxglove Ct Zionsville, IN 46077-9729 jwforler@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-515566
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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 Fortuna 3837 Caerhays Ct Carmel, IN 46032-8240 michael4tuna@aol.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-486625
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Ellen Ambron 4089 Eddystone Pl Eugene, OR 97404-4096 sewcando@comcast.net
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-487363
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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 Fehringer 7 W Broadway Gettysburg, PA 17325-1202 stfehringer@icloud.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-489280
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Owen Haac 802 Avenue B Billings, MT 59102-3428 ohaacke@yahoo.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-489664
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Kerri Keck 913 NW 42nd St Oklahoma City, OK 73118-6804 chunk_stagger8h@icloud.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-490219
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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. Don’t add roads. Sincerely, Kelly Catlin 40 Fishing Brook Rd Westbrook, CT 06498-1469 kkcatlin@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-492080
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Justine Hawkins 616 S Harrison St Shelbyville, IN 46176-2113 hawkinsjjnc@aol.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-497269
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Finley Larson 3800 13th Ave N Apt 202 Grand Forks, ND 58203-2063 fgl96066@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-500332
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, M Nelson 2526 Dell Zell Dr Indianapolis, IN 46220-5830 mnelson5545@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-503554
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 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, Cameron Campbell 618 Iowa St Ashland, OR 97520-2942 cameronlynnecampbell@utexas.edu
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.