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 comments21 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

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-457052
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Example Comment Letter Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing in opposition to rescinding or weakening the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I work as a suburban planner, often approving housing in areas appropriate for development, but know that conserving land away from human settlement is a key part of how we must function as a society for the sake of a more balanced ecosystem. I live and work in the Portland Metro area, but occasionally have the privilege of spending time in parts of the Mt Hood National Forest that benefit from this rule. As an Oregonian, I know that while we have a strong resource extractive economy already, we also rely heavily on tourism, recreation, and other considerations that tie our bottom line to conservation. Turning over additional lands to extractive practices does not serve us. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. • Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented • Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. • Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. • Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. • Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-458426
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a Volunteer Manager for an environmental nonprofit and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas are some of out last sacred spaces - the places that have been untouched, where nature gets to run its natural course. Human intervention has cause irreversible harm and we tend to forget that we are a part of nature. In destroying these spaces, we are only causing difficulty and harm for ourselves in the future. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-458809
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a birder and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-461509
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a wildlife lover and long time Oregonian and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. Liz Fogelson
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 18, 2026FS-2025-0001-445432
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a teacher, live in a rural area, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I live in a community who respectfully hunt, fish, and enjoy nature. There are enough roads. Adding more roads will be detrimental to these areas. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-441805
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a wildlife enthusiast, birder, and active member/volunteer of the Bird Alliance of Oregon (formerly Portland Audubon Society) I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a native Oregonian, I have spent decades hiking in the pristine areas around Mt. Hood National Forest and Deschutes National Forest. My husband is an ultrarunner and has participated in the Waldo Lake ultramarathon for 25 years. We join thousands of Oregonians who believe in preserving our natural and native lands in Oregon and beyond, including the historic and revered Pacific Coast Trail. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. •Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented •Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. •Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. •Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. •Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kim Christiansen Oregon City, OR
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-444824
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an Oregon resident and a volunteer at the Bird Alliance of Oregon’s wildlife care center, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a birder and a volunteer wildlife rehabilitator, I have seen firsthand the devastation that the loss of habitat has had on our native wildlife. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-318357
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a Lab Tech at a local college and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a birder and an aunt, I have helped my niece and grand nephew make wonderful memories on birding and wildflower trips to the Inventoried Roadless Area surrounding Iron Mtn in the Willamette National Forest. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time, Elise West
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-313782
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. Fiscal Responsibility – Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-301766
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a {say something about who you are - teacher, birder, parent, retired researcher, etc} and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 2, 2026FS-2025-0001-303329
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a Nurse Practitioner and a volunteer wildlife camera operator and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I have volunteered in roadless areas of our national forests as a wildlife camera operator, helping local non-profits such as Cascadia Wild document the abundant wildlife in our less touched forests including bear, bobcat, cougar, elk, owls and so so many more animals. In my paid work, I care for people who are deeply affected by wildfire smoke and climate anxiety and who, like myself, find rare solice in the natural world. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-286695
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a parent and former teacher. I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a parent, I have helped my child make wonderful memories at Crater Lake National Park and on Mt. Hood within the roadless areas of the forested landscape. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-288847
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a hiker and birder, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291019
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a boomer who has enjoyed roadless areas all my life, and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a parent I have wonderful memories of exploring these areas with my children and we continue to do so today. We honor the wildlife in these areas and recognize they give us more of an amazing experience to see than we can ever give them. As a person who works 9 to 5 in the hustle of Americana, there is nothing better for self care than being able to spend time in these roadless areas and get back to God's great gift to us. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-291624
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a retired educator and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I have hiked and photographed roadless areas in the Siuslaw, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt Hood wilderness areas and National Forests in Oregon and Washington. They are precious areas where the peace and presence of flora and fauna thrive without human limitations or interrupted access. As the Bird Alliance of Oregon makes clear in this list below: Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. This matter influences how I vote. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-280579
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an avid birder and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. As a long-time resident of Portland, OR, I am constantly in awe of the beauty and wildlife that exists in our state. It is all an invaluable part of what makes the PNW so special and must be protected at all costs. This includes preserving Inventoried Roadless Areas to protect the most vulnerable fish, wildlife and habitats - all of which are critical for our country’s unique beauty. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. * Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented * Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. * Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. * Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. * Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Vanessa Lo
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-284124
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of your agency’s main stated rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Outdoor Recreation: Roadless areas offer abundant outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, camping and other activities. Every year, millions of people take advantage of the free (or extremely affordable) access to these public lands, and roadless areas contribute millions of dollars to local economies through the recreation industry. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as is.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-274822
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 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a yoga teacher in Oregon and I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule is supported by Americans of all political affiliations (99% support in prior comment periods!), and designated roadless areas provide critical habitat for countless imperiled species including species Bird Alliance of Oregon has worked on for decades to protect like the Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet. These species need big, intact tracts of forest. Roads fragment those forests, introducing predators and invasive species, and destroying habitats. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-275249
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a birder, hiker and wildlife supporter, and artist. I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule.Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. We must preserve these areas for future generations. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-275808
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 21 submissions in its group.
Dear USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I am writing today in opposition to rescinding or altering the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have been a Registered Nurse for 23 years with the last 15 years spent as an Hospice Nurse. I am joining millions of Americans of all backgrounds in support of the Roadless Rule. I’ve spent my entire career and adult life serving others in the forest is where I go to replenish so that I may continue to serve. At least one day a week I get out to many of the areas that you have on your list both in Mount Hood National Forest and Gifford Pinchot National Forest. All of my vacations out of state are built around hiking and being in these beautiful public lands. Please keep these places protected and natural so that we may have places of refuge for today and for generations to come. Inventoried Roadless Areas offer tremendous benefits to communities and ecosystems that would be threatened or destroyed by road building. Here are just a few examples of the benefits of retaining the Roadless Rule. Wildlife habitat: imperiled species like Northern Spotted Owls, Marbled Murrelets, and countless other birds rely on large, intact forests with undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes. Salmon, trout, elk, and other species are also threatened when habitat is fragmented Drinking water: 60 million Americans rely on national forests for drinking water; intact forests filter water naturally. Many inventoried roadless areas are important parts of watersheds that supply clean water. Wildfire risk: wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires are human caused and start within half a mile of a road — these facts directly contradict one of the Trump administration’s main rationales for rescinding the rule. Old growth & carbon storage: mature and old-growth forests are a critical buffer against runaway climate change. We should be protecting more forests, not gutting their protections. Additionally, these forests are far more resilient to wildfires than commercially logged forests. Roads are costly. Building new logging roads in remote backcountry areas is extraordinarily expensive, leaving taxpayers with billions of dollars in long-term maintenance costs for roads that are rarely, if ever, used (the existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog). The road network throughout national forests is already massive and should be reduced instead of expanded. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place as it is. Thank you for your time.
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.