Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-602029

From Cascadia Wildlands

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

The comment

Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, We, the undersigned 3,318 Americans, strongly oppose the USDA's proposal to eliminate or weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”). This reckless action would devastate our public lands, waste taxpayer resources, increase wildfire risk and threaten the clean drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities these last remaining intact forestlands provide. This misguided proposal should be abandoned for the following reasons: 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 road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. Roads harm habitat. National forests supply drinking water to millions of people, support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry, and provide irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. Sacrificing ecological resilience for short-term logging profits amidst compounding biodiversity and climate crises is not sound policy. More roads in the backcountry means more fires. Research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads, and fighting fires in remote areas is dangerous, costly, and diverts resources from protecting communities. The public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate. The 2001 Roadless Rule was adopted with overwhelming support after the most extensive public engagement process in the history of federal rulemaking. The effort to repeal it has been rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement with scientists, Tribes and Indigenous peoples, impacted communities and the public who overwhelmingly support protecting the last unroaded forests. This is undemocratic and deeply irresponsible for a decision with such sweeping consequences. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Repealing the Roadless Rule is a net loss for current and future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place.

Topics

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “irreplaceable fish and wildlife habitat”
    • “fragment wildlife habitat”
    • “compounding biodiversity and climate crises”
    • “ecological resilience”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “threaten the clean drinking water”
    • “National forests supply drinking water to millions of people”
  • Governance Policy Process
    • “public process to repeal the rule is woefully inadequate”
    • “rushed, offering little opportunity for engagement”
    • “undemocratic and deeply irresponsible”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “recreation opportunities”
    • “multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation industry”
    • “remote backcountry areas”

Attachments

1 file from Cascadia Wildlands. Counts as 3,295 — Counted from the files: The enclosed submissions were counted from the files themselves.

  • 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.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless