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 comments97 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-541932
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
Hello! As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Javier E Suarez P.S. I'm attaching photos of one of my favorite locations in San Diego County: Cleveland National Forest
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-549340
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-472813
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
There are so many beautiful forests in this country I have yet to see. Being able to enjoy nature without human presence, roads creating noise and development is becoming almost impossible in this country. National parks and forests are some of the few places left to enjoy nature undisturbed. I visited Smoky Mountain National Park where there is a boreal forest that is the only one of its kind. It’s teeming with biodiversity, smells like what heaven would be and is one of the most peaceful places I have ever been. The roadless rule is in place to protect these places and needs to be kept in tact. If anything, we should be preserving more land, not destroying it. Please don’t allow it to be rescinded. As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Kelly Holman Medford, NJ 08055
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-472834
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
There are so many beautiful forests in this country I have yet to see. Being able to enjoy nature without human presence, roads creating noise and development is becoming almost impossible in this country. National parks and forests are some of the few places left to enjoy nature undisturbed. I visited Smoky Mountain National Park where there is a boreal forest that is the only one of its kind. It’s teeming with biodiversity, smells like what heaven would be and is one of the most peaceful places I have ever been. The roadless rule is in place to protect these places and needs to be kept in tact. If anything, we should be preserving more land, not destroying it. Please don’t allow it to be rescinded. As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Kelly Holman
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-458674
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
It is our job as human beings to minimize our impact on the environment and its wild life. Rescinding the roadless act would be an egregious and fatal action that would leave what little wild lands we have left in America intact. And I ask for what? For money, greed, power? These land were purposely set aside to preserve the natural world. Please, I beg, i want to continue to hike woods, smell trees, see rabbits, and wade through streams. To stripe the public and the environments right to protected natural lands is to take away humanity. To teach the next generation that they shouldn't care for about the earth. And to grow up without seeing a bird atop a tree and wonder what it’s like to be that free. So please keep the roadless act intact for us as well as future generations. As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Zoe Kapp Pacifica, CA 94044
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-461814
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. On a personal note, I have spent many days backpacking and hiking in New Mexico on my own and as an adult Boy Scout leader. That experience made it clear to me that the absence of motor vehicles definitely protected those wildernesses I was in and also immeasurably improved my own experience. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Robert L. Scott 10622 Golden Willow Trail, Unit 123 San Diego, CA 92130
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-462445
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. On a personal note, I have spent many days backpacking and hiking in New Mexico on my own and as an adult Boy Scout leader. That experience made it clear to me that the absence of motor vehicles definitely protected those wildernesses I was in and also immeasurably improved my own experience. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Robert Scott San Diego, CA 92130
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-462460
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. This Rule is so important to the health of our forests and communities for so many reasons! Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, [Your information here]
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-436803
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
We need forests; healthy, intact forests The UK destroyed their forests for:: ****building ships masts ****creating more agricultural land ****fear of and thus controlling wild animals. Forests and wild places have Many Benefits;:: ****when properly maintained, forests can help control wildfires ****bring in tourist dollars which help pay salaries for local workers ****help stabilize the soil which can help eleviate soil erosion during a flood ALSO:: Forests contribute beauty, Support wildlife by creating space and shelter Provide a variety of recreational opportunities Alleviate air pollution..... and water pollution As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Kim Troutman Waco, TX 76710
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-444231
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
Roadless is a fundamental component of keeping wild areas "wild." We need a carbon sink - why would we want more roads and fewer forests? National forests have been key places for amazing camping trips and vacations. I can't overstate how much better I feel physically and mentally in those places. But we don't need more roads to enjoy these places! I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Laura Brown, Redwood City, CA 94061
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-444412
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
Roadless is a fundamental component of keeping wild areas "wild." We need a carbon sink - why would we want more roads and fewer forests? National forests have been key places for amazing camping trips and vacations. I can't overstate how much better I feel physically and mentally in those places. But we don't need more roads to enjoy these places! I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Laura Brown Redwood City, CA 94061
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-418058
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state and to California, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. The wilderness keeps us sane and healthy and civilized. It brings us peace and calm. The wilderness supports the animals who live there and the animals are precious. The roads ruin everything. Sincerely, Deborah Margules Norton Shores, MI 49441
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-419306
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
I appreciate the many values national forests bring to CA. I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Jane Madden Saint Louis, MO 63125
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-404747
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
I appreciate the many values national forests bring to CA. I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, [Your information here]I appreciate the many values national forests bring to CA. I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-407450
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. You may remember Henry David Thoreau's words "In wildness is the preservation of the world." Our own survival, that of our children and grandchildren, that is what is at stake. We are created as part of the natural world, our own souls connected to the Creator. Please protect that. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Heide Coppotelli
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-346193
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
It has been my great fortune to spend time in roadless tracks of the Sierras. These areas play an important part in biodiversity protection, protecting natural systems essential for human survival and mitigating the effects of global warming, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353238
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. My husband and I enjoy hiking in the Stanislaus National Forest and find many logging roads that affect our experience of being alone in the natural environment. It is so pleasant when we find places that do not have roads. Thank you for helping to keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, [Your information here]
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354046
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
I have spent many vacations hiking and backpacking in our National Forests. What I value most is hearing the sounds of nature like birds and frogs. Plenty of roads into our forests exist. We don't need more. Each new road into our forests is an opportunity for invasive plants and animals to enter. I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-340047
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a senior and a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-340216
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 97 submissions in its group.
As a person who appreciates the many values national forests bring to my state, my wellbeing, our wildlife and more, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. I feel that it is imperative to try to keep the balance of nature intact. We do not need more motorized vehicles scaring off the lives that dwell in our untrammeled lands. I continually support many organizations that agree with me. Roadless areas keep our forests healthy. They serve as the ecological backbone of our national forest lands and: - Supply 50% of California’s drinking water - Support Tribal cultural practices - Enhance outdoor recreation including backcountry hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, angling, and hunting - Shelter over 200 imperiled species like the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox - Protect the military mission in part by serving as a crucial buffer against urbanization. And, more roads mean more wildfire risk. Most wildfires are caused by humans and most human-caused fires occur near roads. We don’t need more. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact.
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.