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 comments13 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

13 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–13Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-483711
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 24, 2026FS-2025-0001-476865
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you NOT to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I strongly urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 24, 2026FS-2025-0001-477152
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you NOT to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I strongly urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-448010
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I strongly urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-424853
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-405749
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations. Colette
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-406877
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I STRONGLY urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-399133
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to please protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-401131
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly urge you NOT to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-401155
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I beg and urge you NOT to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-401459
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I demand that you do not rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-402626
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, PLEASE!!!! I urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-402628
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins, I respectfully urge you not to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). The nearly 45 million acres of intact, roadless national forests protected by the Ruleincluding approximately 4 million acres in Utahprovide irreplaceable benefits to communities, wildlife, and future generations. Roadless areas protect cultural sites and traditional resources important to Native American Tribes, watersheds that supply clean drinking water, and habitat for native fish and wildlife. They also offer outstanding opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, climbing, mountain biking, birdwatching, and other forms of nonmotorized recreation. These intact forests also store carbon and help communities and ecosystems respond to a changing climate. Roadless national forests are also part of a larger network of connected public lands. They help link mountain ecosystems and headwaters with neighboring BLM lands, including the wilderness-caliber lands proposed for protection in Americas Red Rock Wilderness Act. This proposal is not necessary to preserve access to existing roads, trailheads, or recreation opportunities. Rather, rescinding the Roadless Rule would make it easier to build new roads and open some of our most intact public lands to commercial logging, mining, and other extractive development. New roads carry lasting consequences: they fragment wildlife habitat, erode soils, degrade streams and water supplies, spread invasive species, and increase human disturbance. They can also increase wildfire ignitions. The claim that rescinding the Roadless Rule will protect communities from wildfire is not supported by the best available science. The Rule already allows wildfire suppression and certain fuel-reduction work, including emergency road construction when necessary. We can protect communities from wildfire without sacrificing the last intact roadless forests to permanent roadbuilding and industrial development. Once again, I urge you to protect Americas forests, waters, wildlife, and public lands by withdrawing this proposal and leaving the Roadless Rule in place for future generations.
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'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.