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 7middle half 7–7 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-464926
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.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a birder and nature enthusiast and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Having just moved to Oregon recently, I'm devastated at the idea of losing these beautiful lands. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Examples: Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented. Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Most wildfires are caused by humans near human habitation. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the roadless areas which contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Outdoors recreation leads to healthier societies, especially for children. Fiscal Responsibility - Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Oregon is already seriously in debt. If this administration wants to cut costs, try not fixing what isn't broken. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-470113
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and highlighting my support of the Roadless Rule. I am but one person, but I am joining millions of Americans who are speaking up for those who can't: children, who have a right to preserved nature in their future, and the animals who currently reside in these protected areas. As a resident of Oregon, I understand how important it is in preserving already protected wildlife areas, and it baffles me that sacrificing a precious commodity for extremely short-term gain (if that) is even on the table here. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-452009
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania, now living in Oregon, am an avid hiker and was raised with a profound understanding of how essential it is to keep our wildlands intact and unintended upon by roads. Today I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. * Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented. Often also, wildlife will be forced through habitat infringement and loss to seek food, water and shelter in human populated areas— not good for wildlife or humans. * Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. * Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. * Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. * Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. * Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. * I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Erin Williams
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-452800
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an invasive species ecologist, an avid birder, and a lover of natural spaces. I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As an invasive species ecologist, it’s my job to protect natural areas from invasive non-native species who threaten populations of native species—especially native species which are culturally significant. Roads and other human pathways are the primary vector for spreading non-native, invasive species. These invasives can spread easily in disturbed environments and choke out important native plants, creating repercussions throughout the food web. Roads also break up contiguous habitats into fragmented patches which disrupt the movement and hunting grounds of many species such as bears, cougars, elk, northern spotted owls, and more. These species already have limited suitable habitat available to them. Adding more roads and disturbance will continue to diminish their livable areas and further threaten these species. Furthermore, Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-453020
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.
Since I was a child growing up in Oregon I have enjoyed the great outdoors - camping in wild areas, hiking, mushroom foresting and spending time alone and with friends and family. We are so fortunate to live in such a green state surrounded by so much nature. Nature conservation is extremely important to those of us who grew up and live here in the PNW. I cannot imagine living somewhere where our roadless forests are no longer and plants and animals are at risk. Keeping my state wild for the protection of our local plant and animal species is more important than anything - the future of our planet depends on it!! I am an outdoors - woman & want the great outdoors to stay as they are- wild & green. Please do not take these areas away from future generations. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-453637
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a water quality professional and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a former wildlife researcher, working in roadless areas of oregon, and a landowner near roadless area of Minnesota I can say from first hand experience how crucial roadless areas are for wildlife and clean water, and fire risk reduction. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. M Ryan
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-458877
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a nature enthusiast and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. These roadless regions have brought myself and many others solitude and comfort in the upheaval of life. It’s life-changing to be able to visit these areas and hear the animals and listen to nature just be nature. No human intervention. Just peace. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-461980
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a bird enthusiast who work in the non profit sector, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I have adopted birds since about the third grade. I love seeing them in the wild and in my backyard. One of my favorite times of day is when all the birds in the neighborhood start their chorus. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. Freyja
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-340133
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a student wanting to help protect our planet’s future and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Everyday I see road kill in the city I live in. I cannot imagine the damage this would do to our national parks. We share this land with wildlife and we should allow them to flourish. We have incredible and unique ecosystems that should be a national pride. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility: Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-335059
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a primary care physician specialized in caring for older adults, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. My job has shown me how closely human health is tied to the health of our environment. In caring for older adults, I see firsthand how extreme heat, wildfire smoke, displacement, power outages, and loss of safe access to outdoor spaces disproportionately affect people who are frail, medically complex, mobility-limited, or socially isolated. Many of my patients have less physiologic reserve to tolerate poor air quality or prolonged heat, and fewer resources or options to relocate when environmental hazards become severe. Climate-related disasters can also interrupt access to medications, medical care, caregivers, transportation, and other basic supports that older adults depend on to remain safely in their communities. At the same time, access to clean air, shade, green space, and safe outdoor areas supports physical activity, mental health, social connection, and healthy aging. Protecting intact forests is therefore not only a conservation issue to me—it is also a matter of public health, health equity, and community resilience. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. - Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented - Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. - Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. - Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. - Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. - Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-338558
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an avid outdoorsperson, who relies on nature for her sense of well-bring, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Since moving to the Pacific Northwest almost two decades ago, I have become passionate about maintaining these gorgeous lands for the creatures that live in them, and the world that relies on them. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-318122
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a resident of Oregon and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. It's time to put an end to all of the destructive and thoughtless things that have already been done to our natural resources by the current administration. This is not a partisan issue. People across all parties value and obtain benefits from our natural wilderness. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. - Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented - Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. - Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. - Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. - Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. - Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-334020
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an ecologist in Portland and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As an ecologist I understand the importance of ecosystems that are protected from the damages of industrial activity such as building roads and logging. Protecting our forests in the Pacific Northwest is critical not only to forest habitat, but to riparian and salmon habitat as well. Logging and road construction wreak havoc on our region’s rivers via excess runoff and landslides that end up in our waterways. As a backpacker and hiker, I also enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to recreate in these astonishing forests. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. - Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented - Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. - Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. - Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. - Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. - Fiscal Responsibility - Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as is. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Liz Robertson
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-312602
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a student at Portland State University in the field of Social Work and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Access to these forests have created such a large impact in my life, and has been a rich resource for learning about our ecosystems in a hands on manner. The children I nanny love to see the plants and creatures in this landscape and I urge you to not destroy these resources, not only for the educational resource but as a vital habitat for so many of our native species. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-307309
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a parent and physician and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I have many wonderful memories of enjoying these wild sanctuaries with my friends and family over the years and would be devastated if their untouched beauty were to be permanently scarred by roads and development. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to families, communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. D. Rice, MD
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-301368
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a Wildlife Rehabilitation Technician at the Bird Alliance of Oregon and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a Wildlife Rehabilitator and an avid birder myself, I was devastated to learn that the the Inventoried Roadless Area surrounding Larch Mountain were in danger. My partner and I have some beautiful memories of the area. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-302540
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an individual incredibly invested in wildlife conservation, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I have a deep love for our wildlife, and visiting the few places still relatively untouched by humans is something nothing else can replace. It is inspiring, rejuvenating, and important to me and many others spiritually. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: mperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented. Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road—these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility–Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-295491
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.
I am writing today to ask you to not rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a person who loves nature, clean air, clean water, and trees and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I live in a city and being able to visit the Inventoried Roadless Area at Opal Creek to see birds, wildflowers, and trees relatively undisturbed in their natural habitat, without so many of the invasive species that come from seeds on vehicle tires, is so important. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented. Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility - Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296100
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a scientist, birdwatcher, nature-lover, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Growing up surrounded by the scenic beauty of the Pacific Northwest was among the greatest of privileges in my childhood. Summers were spent at mountain lakes around Mt. Hood in Oregon, Lewis River in Washington, and, currently, I have been exploring the great wonders of the National Forests around the San Francisco Bay Area. Each of these experiences are enhanced by the absence of intrusive roadways. I hope we can keep it this way for future generations to enjoy, and for wildlife to prosper, uninterruptedly. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-299856
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.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing to oppose rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a teacher and Oregonian, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. One of Oregon's richest and most vital natural resources is our undeveloped public lands. These lands sustain our local wildlife, protect our access to clean water, and belong to every citizen of our beautiful state. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented. Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to please keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
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.