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 0
A0 none 1

Substance /24

Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-296602
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.
Santa Fe National Forest is a place that matters to me. I hike, hunt there. If this goes through, this repeal would completely alter this forest and the wilderness that allows for reliable hunting as well as serene untouched forest. Wildfire risk has been proven to INCREASE with the addition of roads - NOT decrease. Preserving the Roadless Rule is critical for maintaining fire safety, especially in such a fire-prone state. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-275425
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.
The Helena Lewis & Clark and Flathead National Forests are places that deeply matter to us. We hike, hunt, and camp there. If road building is allowed in current roadless lands, the effects actually would increase fire danger because land would be opened up. Scientific information proves this is the case. I oppose the action of rescinding the Roadless Rule as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-277266
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.
Missouri has many public lands I frequent, places that are meaningful and important to me. I hike and camp on these public lands and go there to replenish my spirit, as well as to get exercise in a nature setting. If this goes through, quiet wilderness spaces that help urban dwellers decompress will be disrupted, as will vital animal habitat. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized. Do not finalize this rule that would be so destructive to the public lands and wilderness that so many people use and rely on.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270603
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.
Park, forest, camps is a place that matters to me. I do camping, photographs, enjoying nature there. If this goes through, everything would be lost. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. Public lands belong to everyone. Sidelining conservation for mining, drilling, and grazing harms our ecosystems, wildlife, and water. We must protect these spaces for future generations, not just short-term profit. Protect all living animals and the ecosystem that thrive in the National Forest. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-261482
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.
Santa Fe National Forest is a place that matters to me. I hike, photograph and spend time alone and with friends and family there. If this goes through, losing the protection of the roadless rule would have a devastating impact on the experience of a natural and wild place which provides recreation and physical and spiritual well-being. It would deprive future generations of what I have been fortunate to have experienced. Its impact would harm wildlife, birds and ecosystems. It would also increase the chance of wildfires as data has shown most wild fires start close to roads. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 1/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-252233
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 this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-253154
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.
Mt Hood and the Columbia Gorge in Oregon are place that matter to me, right outside my back door. I live here because I love the forests, the wilder the better. Putting in roads is the antithesis of wildness. Furthermore, I reject your idea that we need roads because of forest fires. As you well know, statistics show that the more access people have to forested or wilderness areas the more fires are started there. You are lying to the American people, preying on their grief and sadness about the fires to get them to let you put in roads. You actually want those roads so that you can begin logging. You are not saving those forests at all. Your plan is to cut them down. We are not fooled! I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-226481
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.
Tongas National Forest is a place that matters to me. I live in Southeast Alaska and spend time camping, hiking, and recreating in natural forests. Wild areas are necessary for healthy salmon runs and wildlife, as well as scenic views. Once you open wilderness areas up to logging with road, they are never the same. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-227033
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.
National Forests in California is a place that matters to me. I camp and hike there. If this goes through, undisturbed wilderness, places of solitude and recreation, and habitat for dwindling biodiversity will be lost. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-233442
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.
Mountains and forests is a place that matters to me. I hike, fish, camp there. If this goes through, wildlife eventually flee areas where cars frequently drive. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 20, 2026FS-2025-0001-224084
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.
As a retired federal government ecologist who has worked for the US Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service and the Bureau of Land management I strongly oppose ending this protection. As the numbers of employees have decreased in the USFS there would be insufficient management available to properly administer each forest and the road usage. In short, it would create chaos and end protection for wildlife species and endangered species, cultural sites, habitat protection, and much more. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Aug 20, 2026FS-2025-0001-224288
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.
Mount Baker is a place that matters to me. I see it everyday from my house and its a popular location for hiking and outdoor activities. If this goes through, the protections the areas that are already considered roadless areas would be stripped away from them. Wildlife, clean water, and thriving ecosystems would be at risk. The repeal of the Roadless Rule is one that would irreversibly change ecosystems across the United States, not just in Washington State. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 20, 2026FS-2025-0001-224913
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.
This will affect all land and all animals that live there is a place that matters to me. I travel, hike there. If this goes through, the losses will be immeasurable. Old-growth forests, some trees over a thousand years old, endangered and other animals that call these places home. Humans have to stop the arrogance that we are the only species that matters. I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below. I ask the agency to respond to each of the following issues in the record: 1. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would eliminate the nationwide prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting that have protected about 58 million acres of National Forest System lands for over two decades. 2. Do not shift management of inventoried roadless areas away from a single national rule and into dozens of separate local land management planning processes, where uniform protections can be weakened forest by forest. 3. The 2001 Roadless Rule's broad prohibitions on road building and most timber harvesting are the mechanism keeping these 58 million acres intact, and removing them exposes every inventoried roadless area on National Forest System lands to extractive use. 4. Tribal nations and recreation users who rely on intact roadless areas across the country would lose the consistent federal protections the 2001 Roadless Rule currently provides if this rescission is finalized.
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.