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 1
A0 none 0

Substance /24

Median 8middle half 8–8 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerOct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-542235
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerOct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-542236
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-376953
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.
I am opposed to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects over 44 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not a blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Chris High 13901
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377004
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.
Hi, I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Sean Troxell Riverdale, MD
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377042
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Kathleen Repp Pleasant Hill, CA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377048
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). Public lands need to stay public, not only to benefit corporations. The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Susan Rapsis Bedford, NH
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377649
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.
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects approximately 45 million acres of national forest, areas that provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. The crisis affecting states dependent on the Colorado river highlights the importance of protecting ALL of the watersheds in our country. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, decreasing protection of our watersheds, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. I am not the only constituent taking note of this. Of the over 600,000 comments submitted so far, approximately 99% oppose rescission. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377922
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377924
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.
Good morning, I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Ashley Destin Pullman, WA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377951
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.
Good morning, I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Ashley Destin Pullman, WA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-378932
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.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Jackie from North Carolina
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-379860
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.
PLEASE leave our public lands alone. I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. April Baltimore MD
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 8/24Owed an answerSep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-384456
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.
I am in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66; Docket FS-2025-0001). The Roadless Rule protects roughly 45 million acres of national forest from new road construction and most logging. These areas provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, intact wildlife habitat, and some of the last undisturbed public land in the country. Independent Forest Service data cited in the agency's own comment analysis show watersheds inside roadless areas are far more likely to be in properly functioning condition than those outside them. Rescinding this rule would open these lands to road-building and commercial logging, increasing erosion, fragmenting habitat, and raising costs to taxpayers who would bear the expense of new roads. The claim that roadless status is a barrier to wildfire risk reduction is not supported by the record — most roadless-area wildfire risk is better addressed through targeted, science-based fuel treatments, not blanket rescission. A rule of this scope and consequence deserves a comment process proportional to its impact. A 15-day extension, on top of an already compressed 32-day window, is not adequate given the scale of public interest already shown (over 600,000 comments were submitted on the original notice of intent, 99% opposed to rescission). I ask the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
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.