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 comments20 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 8middle half 8–8 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-504678
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Tim Thomas, Cool, CA 95614
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-510077
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Julia Butterfield Sacramento CA native
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-503873
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility,” which does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-483818
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Grace Truong Sacramento, CA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-468028
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-470750
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. In my Sacramento community, the American River and roadless forests are vital to providing clean water to millions of residents and farmers. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and backcountry experiences such as fishing. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Thank you for your consideration.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354501
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Greetings, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Elena DeLacy Placerville, CA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-355726
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I grew up in Tuolumne County and would visit Yosemite Park with my parents monthly. Parks like these were set aside for a reason. They provide natural balance, and rest and peace and guard wildlife. . These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Elizabeth Rocke Westphalis Missouri.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-361416
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
I am writing to urge you to oppose the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule. The agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. The Roadless Rule protects important wildlife habitats, and clean water, and reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire. I am especially concerned about protecting wilderness areas for the backcountry experiences my family and I cherish. A road through the wilderness areas ceases to be wilderness. Counter to the stated intention of the recision, removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-334650
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-335293
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Gary Peterson 12613 Quill Hollow Drive Auburn CA 95603
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-337832
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. Roadless areas because I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Monique Salmonsen 2700 Tiffany West Way Sacrameto, Ca
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-327489
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because I live, work, and raise my family in the Sierra Nevada where recreation and access to public land is our communities greatest economic driver and is what sustains our communities wellbeing. We rely on the water, the forests, and mountains and have chosen a life’s work of helping to steward these lands for our community. These places are irreplaceable for out community, our culture, and our family. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Matthew Chappell 11815 Silverfir Circle Truckee, CA 96161
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-332525
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because I spend much of my time off from work in Sierra Nevada wilderness. When I hike, backpack, or fish, I do so in solitary beauty. I enjoy seeing other people, but roads that I cross are exposed, devoid of plant and animal life, often there is trash, allow vehicles that stir up dust and welcome people who are accessing the wilderness for illiegal and/or harmful activities. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife management and clean watersheds. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-332848
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas. I specifically left the state of Florida due to the irresponsible destruction of wildlife habitat to build strip malls and mansions. I love the Sierra because it provides places of peace and wellbeing. Everyone is especially courteous when you meet them in nature. There’s a reason for that! We NEED it - we are part of it - we can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Madeline Franke
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-333288
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service, I write to urge you to maintain the existing Roadless Rule and oppose the proposed rescission of this important safeguard. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should focus on creating small amendments to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping the beneficial aspects of the rule in place. As a US citizen, I find great value in roadless areas. I live in the Sierra Nevada, where I am surrounded by the peace, beauty, and clean air of roadless places. Nature is beneficial to public and personal health, mental wellbeing, and community resilience. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service states greater “local flexibility” - but that this has not translated to greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not allow for stronger local control. Instead, it burdens local governments and entities with planning and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. This will inevitably result in poor implementation of necessary oversight. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule if effective: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-334089
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Public Comment Script Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because [insert your personal connection here: e.g., I hike in Castle Peak near Truckee, my family camps in the Dardanelles, I fish the Feather River, I rely on clean Sierra Nevada water]. These places are irreplaceable for [insert what matters most to you: clean water, wildlife, recreation, or cultural values]. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, DeWitt Van Siclen 12211 Highland Ave Truckee, CA 9616-
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-334546
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because I value wilderness, clean water, wildlife diversity and the opportunity for solitude. I love the Sierra because it provides amazing opportunities for finding peace and wellbeing. We NEED it, and so does wildlife. We, and they, can’t live without it. These places are irreplaceable for wildlife, clean water, cultural values, and humans. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. It concerns me that the Forest Service emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. WHY NOT? Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining. Many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, all while federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. This will not lead to wise forest planning or usage. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. For the past 25 years, the Roadless Rule has struck the right balance: allowing managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please REJECT this broad repeal and PRESERVE the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Lynn Schardt Garden Valley, CA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-306982
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 20 submissions in its group.
Subject: Keep the 2001 Roadless Rule Intact (Docket FS–2025–0001 or RIN 0596-AD66) Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas, because areas like the North Fork American & Feather River were favored fishing areas for my family as we were growing up. The wilderness-adjacent areas near Yosemite have welcomed family members for years. In addition, some family members rely on clean Sierra Nevada water where they live. These places are irreplaceable for their clean water, wildlife habitat protection, and the unique recreation opportunities we have been given to enjoy the peacefulness nature provides. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water, providing wildlife habitat, preserving Tribal cultural resources, and offering cherished backcountry experiences. They also sustain thriving recreation economies while supporting community safety through wildfire prevention, firefighting access, and road maintenance. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Linda Garner 3925 Twilight Drive San Jose, CA 95124
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 8/24Aug 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-225848
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 20 submissions in its group.
Dear U.S. Forest Service, I am writing to urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and oppose the proposed rescission. Instead of an overly broad repeal, the agency should pursue targeted improvements to the Roadless Rule that strengthen wildfire resilience and recreation access, while keeping its strong safeguards in place. I care deeply about roadless areas because I backpack and fish with my family every year at lake Aloha and lake Winnemucca. I rely on clean Sierra Nevada water for drinking. These places are irreplaceable for some peace and quiet time and recharging while spending time with loved ones, away from roads and civilization. All places that you can get to in a vehicle seem overcrowded and full of trash. The lands protected by the Roadless Rule were identified for their critical role in safeguarding clean water and roaming for wildlife without roads where they can get run over. I am particularly concerned that the Forest Service’s emphasis on greater “local flexibility” does not necessarily mean greater local engagement. In the Eastern Sierra, for example, the Forest Service is again considering exploratory gold drilling near Hot Creek, a popular recreation and fly-fishing area. Yet the process this time does not require a public comment period. Removing the Roadless Rule does not guarantee stronger local control. Instead, it would shift significantly more responsibility to local plans and project-level decisions at a time when agency capacity and opportunities for public involvement are declining, many forest plans are outdated, categorical exclusions are being used more broadly, and federal priorities are pushing for increased resource extraction. The Forest Service already manages roughly 380,000 miles of roads across the National Forest System, much of which it does not have the resources to maintain. More roads could increase forest fragmentation, erosion, invasive species, and wildfire risk. In California, about 86% of wildfires are human-caused, with ignition risk four times higher near roads. The Roadless Rule strikes the right balance: it allows managers to reduce fuels and protect communities while maintaining a consistent national safeguard against unnecessary new roads. Please reject this broad repeal and preserve the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Maria Mircheva 1458 Mt Rainier Dr South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
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.