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 comments31 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 8middle half 8–8 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-572532
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
I categorically oppose any changes that endanger the lands currently protected by the roadless rule. As a passionate backcountry recreationist that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Signed, A Concerned Citizen in New Mexico
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-577008
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
Subject: Oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule – Docket FS-2025-0001 I categorically oppose any changes that endanger the lands currently protected by the roadless rule. As a passionate backcountry recreationist that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Christie DeRussy New Orleans, LA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-586787
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
I categorically oppose any changes that endanger the lands currently protected by the roadless rule. As a passionate backcountry recreationist that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-560325
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate backpacker and outdoor recreation economy industry professional that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 30, 2026FS-2025-0001-519059
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
Subject: Oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule – Docket FS-2025-0001 As a patron of public lands and citizen of an economy thrives on healthy and robust outdoor recreation businesses, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Thank you for considering these comments. Brandy Steinhilber
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-509285
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate (backcountry recreationist, outdoor recreation economy industry professional, outdoor industry small business owner, etc.) that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 24, 2026FS-2025-0001-478006
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate backcountry recreationist that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Miguel Ballardo
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-463610
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate backcountry recreationistand American citizen that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Clara von Dohlen
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 18, 2026FS-2025-0001-447136
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
Subject: Oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule – Docket FS-2025-0001 As a passionate outdoor enthusiast and nature lover who grew up exploring backyard tiny trails to our beautiful national parks like Yosemite, Redwoods, Rocky Mountain and more, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These spaces must be protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy and develop strong ties to our planet and natural resources. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Kellen Hennessy Hiker, nature lover, and designer of outdoor gear
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-414461
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate hiker, backpacker, whitewater rafter and nature enthusiast that depends on a healthy and robust protected lands, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. A concerned citizen
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 9/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-377293
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate backcountry recreationist that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Please hold regional public meetings and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Roadless areas near me such as the Kings River and Dinkey Lakes Wilderness are incredible spaces in nature that I would be deeply upset if I lost. They are important to myself and many others in my community. Please protect them. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-358712
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-370510
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate environment advocate, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. (5) Damage to the carbon sink protected by the roadless rule. (6) damage to rare and protected environments, habitats and loss of species. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Drew Gaulzetti
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 11/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-339706
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a professional whitewater guide who runs backcountry trips trough roadless areas and whose income depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-324884
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a human who actually cares for our earth and our home, that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-332243
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate and avid outdoorsman who loves hiking, fishing, skiing, birding and many other outdoor activities, that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I fully oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Joel Smith
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-311209
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-311493
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-301792
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate backcountry recreationist and outdoor industry small business owner that depends on a healthy and robust outdoor recreation economy, I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and high-value backcountry recreation across tens of millions of acres. If the Roadless Rule is repealed and decisions are made only at the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address forest health or wildfire risks. The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21-day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extend the comment period to at least 60–90 days, hold regional public meetings, and ensure the draft EIS includes a robust No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments. Rebecca Van Kollenburg Owner of ZAPWARE Outdoors Hiker, backpacker, mountaineer, camper, forager
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-299129
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 31 submissions in its group.
As a passionate and frequent backcountry user, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule has been an effective, durable baseline that protects water quality, wildlife habitat, and high value backcountry recreation across tens of millions acres. If the Roadless Rule is replaced and decisions are made at only the local level, protections will become fragmented and uneven. That weakens the overall conservation framework, without any credible evidence that the national rule itself is what limits our ability to address the forest health or wildfire risks.The NOI cites changing conditions, wildfire, insects, disease, and WUI growth. Those realities deserve targeted, site-specific tools. They do not require removing the national safeguards that prevent road building and timber extraction in places where intact landscapes are the very asset we are trying to conserve. Existing authorities already allow necessary exceptions and fuels work with environmental review. Before rescinding the rule, the EIS should rigorously analyze: (1) alternatives that retain the Roadless baseline while enabling time-bounded, decommission-on-completion access for hazard reduction near communities; (2) lifecycle costs and maintenance liabilities of any new roads; (3) impacts to municipal watersheds, fisheries, and backcountry economies; and (4) cumulative effects from increased access on invasive spread and fragmentation. Finally, a 21 day scoping window is not sufficient for meaningful participation on an action of this magnitude. Please extened the comment period to at least 90 days, hold public meetings, and ensure the draft the EIS includes a No Action and Modified Roadless alternative. Thank you for considering these comments.
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

Please cite us. This analysis is the intellectual property of Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser. You are welcome to reproduce it — every reproduction must include this citation:

Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser, “2001 Roadless Rule Revision — Substantive Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. A large language model (an open-weight Qwen3.8 model) reads each substantive comment and copies, word for word, the passages that carry its analytical gap, evidence, request, alternative and connection to the place; it returns no scores. Code grades those passages 0–3 on eight dimensions — evidence, legal grounding, engagement with the environmental analysis, analytical gaps, alternatives, specific requests, position, and local knowledge — with legal grounding taken from a citation scan, not the model. For the strongest tenth on each side, the copied passages are checked against the comment and shown as exhibits. A comment counts as “substantive” when it clears a floor filter — it must show at least one substantive signal (a named entity, a specific citation, a stated analytical deficiency, or first-person testimony), which screens out one-line and purely conclusory submissions before any model scoring.

The full method. Every step, why it is done that way, its known limits and a glossary: Methodologies →

The data. The full canonical dataset — every comment on Docket FS-2025-0001 — is available from Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload.

Roadless.org — analysis of the public comment docket.
Media inquiries welcome — nicholas@wanderingnature.com.