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 comments15 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 4middle half 4–4 · 1 scored

Topics raised

15 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–15Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-430088
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. The Allegheny National Forest is the closest roadless forest near to where I live. My family and friends have enjoyed hiking, camping, and canoeing in the forest. Only 5% of the entire forest is designated as roadless. I feel if the rest of the forest is open to industry then the small amount still protected should remain protected. But of course, I think all current roadless forests across the country must to be preserved as such for the benefit of all. Do not rescind the roadless rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-258081
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule protects something that is rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot be recreated once roads and development move in. Our public lands belong to all citizens of the U.S. Most citizens are opposed to eliminating existing protections. The Forest Service has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for simply lining the pockets of developers, and those who support them. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot be restored.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-260004
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. Please reconsider and respect these public lands!!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-244510
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-244523
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule should not be rescinded. The protected landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is a progressive strategy that focuses on conservation and respecting the importance of natural habitats. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-246497
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. Our wild spaces are paramount to the health of our country and the people and animals that live there. Without these spaces we will continue to erode our planet of fresh air and water. Once you destroy it, it’s destroyed forever. Future generations will not know what true nature is nor will they know what clean air and water are. Please protect these lands and do not rescind the “Roadless Rule”.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-247197
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
As a previous compliance inspector for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I have seen first-hand the negative impact that road development and maintenance can have on local water quality. When associated with resource extraction, this negative impact can be exponential. The August 2026 “2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule Rescission, Draft Environmental Impact Statement” states that “…additional road construction and timber harvest eventually could occur, and these activities could contribute to reducing forest soil productivity and water quality.” However, it also seems to conclude that existing land management plans and “…using Best Management Practices during road maintenance and construction can reduce these impacts to levels congruent with the Clean Water Act.” I would be more comfortable assuming that existing plans and practices would be effective to protect water quality, however, with significant budget cuts to both U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budgets, how effective will the oversight be? The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-248299
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
I beg of our common sense government officials with the authority to influence whether or not the Roadless Rule gets rescinded or upheld to be loud, bring receipts (Fire studies, Nature studies, etc.) and relentless in protecting what we can to ensure generations of humans can experience and continue to preserve God’s green Earth! I second every word in this person’s (not mine) comment verbatim: The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-252675
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. We know where the impetus for this change is coming from: a desire to make it easier to exploit public lands without our notice. For mining, drilling, harvesting, etc.. It can be smokescreened as a means of modernization or as (wrongheaded) fire prevention. But in the end, we all see it for what it is. Cease being patsies for the side of our society that cares only for profit.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-254947
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
Our Public Lands should not be exploited for short-term results. They are a treasure for us and for future generations. The rationale provided does not warrant what is proposed. The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-226043
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
I oppose this change in regulation. The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis* of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. Under no circumstances do increased revenue a valid justification for the destruction of this beautiful nation. *Roadless status under The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not associated with increased wildfire in the US National Forest System Authors: John B. Kilbride James D. Johnston Robert E. Kennedy Garrett W. Meigs Enoh Martha Francis
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-226103
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
It is vitally important to not allow road construction in our forests. The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-226290
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. -From Indiana
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-243213
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk. Just as importantly, rescinding the Roadless Rule is not a wildfire-prevention strategy supported by the evidence. A 2026 analysis of four decades of fire data across 11 Western states found that wildfire rates in inventoried roadless areas were not significantly different from those in roaded and developed portions of national forests, concluding that rescinding the rule is unlikely to produce different wildfire outcomes. The existing rule also contains exceptions that allow vegetation management, road construction, and other actions when necessary to reduce wildfire risk or protect public safety. Opening these lands to more roads, logging, and development would trade an enormous, long-term public value for relatively limited short-term opportunities. Roadless forests provide benefits that timber sales cannot replace: clean water, intact ecosystems, recreation, wildlife habitat, and the simple value of knowing that there are still places in America where development has not yet reached. Once those landscapes are fragmented by roads and industrial activity, their roadless character—and many of the values that come with it—cannot easily be restored. This is not a renewable resource in the time we have. We need to protect these National treasures the way they are. Why are we moving backward on the progress we have made to restore these natural spaces? The environmental impact is irreversible, the impact on the people living near us irreversible. We will have no more wild spaces left for us to breathe explore research and learn from. This is illegal and should be in state control at least.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 20, 2026FS-2025-0001-224107
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 15 submissions in its group.
The Roadless Rule is important because it protects something that is increasingly rare in America: large, intact forests that remain free from roads, industrial development, and fragmentation. These landscapes provide clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, recreation, solitude, and opportunities for future generations that cannot simply be recreated once roads and development move in. The rule is also uniquely American in spirit—a recognition that our public lands belong to all of us and that some places are more valuable when we choose not to develop them. The Forest Service itself has long recognized that roadless areas contain scarce ecological, social, and economic values, while Congress’s research service notes that roads can fragment habitat, increase erosion, degrade water quality, and increase human-caused fire risk
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

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

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

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

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

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

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