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 comments91 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

A1 strong 0
A2 moderate 0
A3 weak 0
A0 none 1

Substance /24

Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-601249
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Christopher Conley, Edmonds WA, 98020
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-578442
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Concerned Citizen of Washington State and Proud American
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-596228
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, A Concerned Voter El Cerrito CA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-500138
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Peggy Jackson Bellevue, WA 98006
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-471927
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Alice Shilhanek, Bellingham, WA 98226
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-468271
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Dr. Jared Grummer Missoula, MT 59801
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-455876
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years, this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics, and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas mean more opportunities for fire starts on these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service already can't keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.    Sincerely, Norman Taylor, Mount Vernon, WA 98274
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-462069
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. John A Stewart Anacortes, Wa.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-462779
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Ted Grudowski
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 18, 2026FS-2025-0001-445241
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Susan Fenoglio
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-444679
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Lynn Fletcher
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-382215
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Donna Snow, Olympia, WA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-385127
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Karen Brinkley from Graham Washington 98338
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-400008
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place for all of the reasons listed below. I am following the lead of an advocacy group whose vision I trust, so I am using their form letter. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 13, 2026FS-2025-0001-375419
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Thomas Olsen
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-342994
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Tim Durnell
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-343736
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Mark Mahaffey, Olympia WA 98512
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-347658
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Wendy Novini, Puyallup, WA 98374
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354185
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it. Most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only increase that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation policy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, David Vonmoos Seattle, WA 98115
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-355746
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 91 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Matt Johnson Grass Valley, CA 95945
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.