Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

“The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the…”

Campaign: One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. It counts as one unique comment. The record does not say which organisation ran it.

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24

70 submissions
68 versions of the text
67 added words of their own

TopicsGovernance Policy Process Recreation Tourism Public Use Water Quality Quantity Wildlife Habitat

The letter's full analysis →Every submission of it →

When it arrived

Submissions received each day. Tap or hover a bar for its count.

Sep 23Sep 30Oct 6

Sep 26: 15 submissions, 0 unique comments

What it names

Roadless areas: + Santa Cruz

Names marked + were added by senders and are not in the shared letter.

The letter

As sent in FS-2025-0001-478278, the comment that stands for the group.

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Kaylee Kesler 4841 W 18th Ave Apt 224 Eugene, OR 97402-9493 ktbliss0@gmail.com

← All campaigns

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 — Public Comment Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. Position and topic classification is performed by a large language model (the open-weight Qwen3.8 27B) that reads each comment and labels its position — supports, opposes, or neutral — and the topics it raises. Copies and campaigns are found by hashes of the text and the overlap of six-to-eight-word phrases, grouped into text families; every unique figure counts one family once. Sentence embeddings (Qwen3) find reworded templates, shown under Organized campaigns, and cross-check the families; lexical, syntactic and stylometric features (TF-IDF, spaCy) score each comment’s originality for review. Neither decides a copy count. The full method is on the Methodologies page of roadless.org.

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.