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 comments23 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

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-591197
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Reasons to maintain the current roadless national forest state: Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-330081
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
KEEP THE ROADLESS AREAS ROADLESS. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-308567
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I am writing to oppose ending the roadless rule. Maintaining roadless areas are vital for everything from fiscal responsibility to maintaining a healthy planet (including people!) Here are some ways the roadless rule benefits all of us: Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-301203
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I am adamantly against the rescinding of the Roadless Area Conversation Rule. My reasoning is as follows: Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Several species would be threatened with the creation of more roads into their habitats. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. We need to protect these areas. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. It would drastically damage drinking water when the US has experienced the hottest summer on record. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it. Shame on you Forest Service, for even considering such an act that damages both human and animal lives.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296887
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I do not support this change for the following reasons: Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-297771
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Keep the no road rule intact Forest Service! Do not change it! These are the people's forests and you need to do what is right. Below are some facts to support my position! No roads in our forests. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-290564
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 23 submissions in its group.
For the following reasons, I am against rescinding the roadless regulation of 2001. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-290618
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I am against rescinding roadless wilderness protection for the following reasons: Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-290663
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
This is just not well thought through. Allowing roads through pristine wilderness areas will kill plants and wildlife in those areas. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-290669
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-290729
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
No to rescinding the roadless rule. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291179
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it. It simply doesn’t make sense from any angle to repeal this when what we have needs to be improved
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291485
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I oppose rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291503
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Hello, I am commenting on the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am against this proposal for the following reasons: Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it. Please do not proceed with this proposal. Thank you
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291534
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Stop the Absolute madness. Only when there’s nothing left will we collectively realize…it wasn’t worth it Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291657
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
It's important that we save Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291751
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth and carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-292487
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-293191
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Do not rescind this rule. Preserving the forest areas that we have is critical to our future and future generations. Some reasons why allowing more roads is a bad idea: Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-293670
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I wish to express my sincere disappointment that this change is even being considered. Our country and its natural habitats are a legacy that we can leave for the generations after we have long left. If we destroy those, there is no getting them back. Some other considerations that directly address some of the administration's reasoning for the change: Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback. Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon. Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally. Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it. Our national parks and other protected areas need to stay that way!
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.