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 comments18 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 4middle half 4–4 · 1 scored

Topics raised

18 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–18Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-348315
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
My name is Toby Blauwasser and I am writing to you from Longmont, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Toby Blauwasser
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-348326
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
My name is Toby Blauwasser and I am writing to you from Longmont, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Toby Blauwasser
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353491
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Amanda and I am writing to you from Lone Tree Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Amanda Rix
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353570
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, I am writing to you in order to oppose the repealing of the roadless rule, established in 2001. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Hands off our lands.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353928
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, I am writing to you in order to oppose the repealing of the roadless rule, established in 2001. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Hands off our lands.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354106
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Sheldon and I am writing to you from Aurora, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. The Roadless Rule is one of this country’s most popular conservation policies. A repeal of this rule would open over 45 million acres of our public lands to roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. Roadless forests are less fire-prone. In fact, roadless forests are 4 times less likely to burn. At-risk wildlife such as elk, grizzly bears, wolves, deer, spotted owls, migratory birds, and spawning salmon depend on these roadless areas. Forests absorb carbon dioxide, helping us fight climate change. Our undisturbed headwaters provide drinking water for 60 million people downstream. Development speeds erosion and sedimentation. A repeal would endanger 44,000 miles of backcountry trails. Roadless areas contribute to a $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy. The Roadless rule preserves and protects important cultural sites. The U.S. already has over 380K miles of forest roads with a massive maintenance backlog of $8.4 billion. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-355525
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Nicole Box and I am writing to you from Colorado Springs, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Nicole Box
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-330444
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
My name is Shane McDonnell and I am writing to you from Grand Junction Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Shane McDonnell
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-307159
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Irene Nelson and I am writing to you from Fort Collins, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. The Roadless Rule is one of this country’s most popular conservation policies. A repeal of this rule would open over 45 million acres of our public lands to roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. In addition, roadless forests are less fire-prone. In fact, roadless forests are 4 times less likely to burn. Please think about our climate - forests absorb carbon dioxide, helping us fight climate change. Our water - Our undisturbed headwaters provide drinking water for 60 million people downstream. Development speeds erosion and sedimentation. Our economy - Roadless areas contribute to a $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy. A repeal would endanger 44,000 miles of backcountry trails. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Irene Nelson
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-300862
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Joel H and I am writing to you from Denver, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Upending the Roadless Rule is an affront to the citizenry of Colorado, past, present and future. Please protect Colorado's beautiful forests. Sincerely, Joel H
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-305751
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Ellen and I am writing to you from Fort Collins, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Roadless Rule is one of this country’s most popular conservation policies. A repeal of this rule would open over 45 million acres of our public lands to roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. Roadless forests are less fire-prone. In fact, roadless forests are 4 times less likely to burn. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Ellen
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296017
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 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is _Kathleen Grimm____ and I am writing to you from __Centennial____ Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Kathleen Grimm
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296464
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Dawn Kimble and I am writing to you from Boulder, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We humans have had an outsized impact on the planet's ecosystems. It's very important that we constrain our greed and power (and roads) to protect the other marvelous inhabitants of this land. All animals need intact regions to live in. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296831
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Elana and I am writing to you to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296916
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Reid Anderson, I live in Conifer CO, and I am writing to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Forests are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL in our fight against climate change. Please show us you care in this fight. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-298473
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Julie Smith and I am writing to you from Golden Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In the past 50 years, we have seen a 70% loss in wildlife as a direct result of our abuses and consumption of wildlands, and it has to stop, or wildlife will be mainly decimated in the next couple decades. This would be a total destruction of the intricate web of life that wildlife and humans need on our planet. At this point, we desperately need to give land back to wildlife, not take it away. For more than 25 years, the roadless rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Julie
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-299923
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Dr. Lauren Mason and I am writing to you from Aurora, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Dr. Lauren Mason
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-300082
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
To the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, My name is Joseph Antone, and I am writing to you as a homeowner from Longmont, Colorado to oppose the proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid outdoor enthusiast, but more so as a human being living on the planet, the forest is my sanctuary. It shelters plants and water vital to our existence. I moved to the state in 2021 and retired after 42 years of work, so I could enjoy clean air and water in the Rocky Mountains. For more than 25 years, this rule has helped protect some of our country's most intact national forests from unnecessary road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development. Repealing it would make it much easier to open millions of acres of public land to new roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. New roads do much more than change the landscape. They fragment wildlife habitat, increase erosion, threaten clean water, create pathways for invasive species, and make previously remote areas more vulnerable to development and other damaging extraction processes. We should not weaken protections for our threatened intact forests at a time when they are increasingly important for wildlife, recreation, clean water, and carbon storage. Wildfire mitigation and forest health work can be done without dismantling protections across tens of millions of acres. Public lands belong to all of us, and once these forests are logged, drilled, or developed, we cannot simply restore what was lost. Therefore, I urge the USDA and U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for considering my comment and for protecting our public lands from development. Sincerely, Environmental Justice Committee, Denver Metro Area chapter, The Climate Reality Project Other reasons to keep the Roadless Rule in place: One of this country’s most popular conservation policies. A repeal of this rule would open over 45 million acres of our public lands to roads, timber harvests, and future oil, gas, mineral, and coal development. Roadless forests are less fire-prone. In fact, roadless forests are 4 times less likely to burn. At-risk wildlife such as elk, grizzly bears, wolves, deer, spotted owls, migratory birds, and spawning salmon depend on these roadless areas. Forests absorb carbon dioxide, helping us fight climate change. Our undisturbed headwaters provide drinking water for 60 million people downstream. Development speeds erosion and sedimentation. A repeal would endanger 44,000 miles of backcountry trails. Roadless areas contribute to a $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy. The Roadless rule preserves and protects important cultural sites. The U.S. already has over 380K miles of forest roads with a massive maintenance backlog of $8.4 billion.
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.