Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-505645

From Oregon Wild

Opposes rescissionPosted September 29, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

The comment

The following is submitted on behalf of 1869 individuals who oppose the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule (see attached files). Repealing Roadless Area protections would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine the clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities that millions of Americans depend on. The agency should take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, and leave current roadless protections in place.

Topics

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “devastate our public lands”
- “wildlife habitat”
- “leave current roadless protections in place”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean water”
- “undermine the clean water”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “recreation opportunities”
- “millions of Americans depend on”
Governance Policy Process
- “take Alternative 1, the No Action alternative”
- “oppose the proposed rescission”

Attachments

5 files from Oregon Wild. Counts as 1,859 — Counted from the files: The enclosed submissions were counted from the files themselves.

Enclosed submissions
Enclosed submissions
Enclosed submissions
Enclosed submissions
Enclosed submissions

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.