Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-280393

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted August 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 15 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored with own additions — A family member whose own text beyond the shared letter was scored and combined with the letter's score.

The comment

I STRONGLY oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to repeal or weaken the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule that has protected wild, unfragmented forests for more than a quarter-century. The rationale offered for doing so isn’t supported by science. This action would harm — not help — our national forests. It would also harm - not help - our wildlife and outdoor communities. I have been a public school librarian in the state of Montana for 13 years. Libraries offer a safe space for people to go when they don't have anywhere else. Libraries are safe havens for children and people who need a space that is different than the rest of the school or city. Some children and some people need quiet spaces, to get away from the chaos of American life. Libraries offer that, and our untouched national forests offer that. There needs to be quiet, untouched spaces for people and wildlife to go when the world around them is busy and bustling and overflowing with stimulation. Our national forests have plenty of roads and logging areas already, we absolutely do NOT need MORE roads or more of our pristine spaces taken over by infrastructure. This decision would have a direct negative impact on me and the small Montana community I call home. I am fortunate enough to live in the backyard of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and the thought of the roadless rule being changed is terrifying. It would destroy the GYE and the enormous number of wildlife who depend on it, as well as the communities who care for these lands. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH ANY MORE OF OUR PROTECTED PUBLIC LANDS. Leave the Roadless Rule intact!!!!! Furthermore... The case for prohibiting road construction and commercial logging in intact forests is just as strong today as it was in 2001, when the U.S. Forest Service first enacted this conservation rule. The rule recognizes that roadless areas serve as biological strongholds for imperiled species, that habitat fragmentation harms wildlife, and that intact forests act as buffers against the spread of invasive plant species. With more species endangered today and wildlands disappearing at a rapid pace, roadless areas are more important than ever to address ongoing wildlife decline and the extinction crisis. Roadless areas within the national forest system also contain all or part of 354 municipal watersheds, supplying drinking water to millions of Americans and saving downstream communities millions of dollars in water-filtration costs. These lands provide outstanding recreation opportunities — hiking, camping, experiencing wildlife, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing. Furthermore, when the original rule was adopted, the agency was already grappling with a multi-billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog on its expansive road system. That backlog remains roughly the same today. Building more roads on top of the nearly 370,000 miles the agency currently manages would only deepen a problem that remains unsolved after 25 years. Importantly, expanding roads into forested landscapes will increase wildfire risk. Research has shown that human-caused ignitions are responsible for the vast majority of wildfires, and are roughly four times more likely to start near roads, due to causes like sparks from vehicles and unattended campfires. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided proposal and instead reaffirm its commitment to protecting America's roadless forests for the wildlife habitat, clean water, climate resilience, and recreation values they provide to us all.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “biological strongholds for imperiled species”
- “habitat fragmentation harms wildlife”
- “address ongoing wildlife decline and the extinction crisis”
Water Quality Quantity
- “contain all or part of 354 municipal watersheds”
- “supplying drinking water to millions of Americans”
- “saving downstream communities millions of dollars in water-filtration costs”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “outstanding recreation opportunities”
- “hiking, camping, experiencing wildlife, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “expanding roads into forested landscapes will increase wildfire risk”
- “human-caused ignitions are responsible for the vast majority of wildfires”
- “roughly four times more likely to start near roads”

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.