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 comments79 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 6middle half 6–6 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607383
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Please keep the roadless rule in place. It's an important rule to protect our public forests. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607414
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, Please stop the plunder. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607568
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Protect our lands. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607604
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Protect roadless areas. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607643
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. The National Forest is a place of freedom to leave the hustle and bustle of every day life and just be at peace in nature. Please don't repeal the rule that has protected the environment for so long. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607885
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, Roads disturb land and natural habitat. Roads should be limited to preserve surrounding wild lands. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-610296
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, As a native of Augusta County who has hiked in a number of Forest Service Roadless areas. Hence, I strongly oppose the Trump Administration's proposed overthrowing of the decades old Roadless Area Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-611422
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Intact forest is one of our greatest assets in a time of climate change. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-611423
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Intact forest is one of our greatest assets in a time of climate change. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-612413
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, Keeping Virginia's national forests roadless protects clean water for Virginia residents. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-612454
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden, Leave our national forests and wilderness alone. How about we plow down your home/property. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g., stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-581841
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: We do not want to expand roads. Keep native habitats. Keep Virginia wild. Keep the government out of our precious nature. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590378
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: We don't need more development and mining. We need to keep our forests and nature in tact!!! I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590379
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: We don't need more development and mining. We need to keep our forests and nature in tact!!! I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590499
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: We need more forests not less to heal the earth I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590530
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: We need to preserve these area I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590891
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: Wild lands are out most valuable lands, especially from a source water protection standpoint. Please rethink changing the roadless rule. I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-590925
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: Yes to this petition! I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-595904
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Keep our forests wild, and politicians pockets empty! Leave our land alone. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-596289
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 79 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins: I wish to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The designated roadless areas on our national forests are some the last remaining wild places in America where nature is at its best. It's because they are undeveloped that they are deeply cherished by generations of hunters, anglers, hikers, equestrians, naturalists, birders, campers, and others. It's because they are undeveloped that they provide priceless natural-resource services to rural communities and all Americans, including clean drinking water and purified air, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, especially for rare species, and ecological biodiversity. Once these environmental and recreational assets are impaired or destroyed, they won't come back for a very, very long time. Here are additional reasons I urge you to maintain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as is: - Protect clean drinking water. Communities including Harrisonburg, Staunton, and others downstream rely on clean, low-cost drinking water from roadless areas in the national forest. - Safeguard rich wildlife habitat. These areas provide habitat for black bears, rare salamanders, 250 bird species, and other wildlife. Roadless areas in Virginia’s national forest contain exceptional biodiversity, including 43 at-risk species and species found nowhere else on Earth. - Offer outstanding outdoor recreation. Visitors can hike, mountain bike, fish, hunt, camp, ride horses, study nature, and find solitude and renewal in these wild places—experiences that are essential to America’s outdoor tradition. - Strengthen local economies. People who visit roadless areas support nearby communities by spending on food, fuel, lodging, campsites, gear, and other services. Among other things, the Forest Service says repealing the Roadless Rule will allow for better fire management in these areas, and more "local control" over individual national forests. However: - More roads increase wildfire risk. The rule already allows fuel reduction, small tree thinning, and other wildfire prevention management. In Appalachia, more than 80 percent of wildfires are caused by humans. Nationwide, 90 percent of wildfire ignitions occur within 1/2 mile of roads. From 1992 to 2024, wildfires were four times as likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forest tracts. Even the Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology organization supports the current Roadless Rule. - More roads increase non-native species. Road construction equipment disturbs the soil and carries seeds of non-native species into remote areas that previously harbored only native plants. Non-native species (e.g.,stilt grass, garlic mustard, “mile-a-minute,”) crowd out and native wildflowers and other plants. - More vehicles mean more erosion. Dozens of volunteers with the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club maintain 61 trails in two districts on the George Washington National Forest that combined, have the most concentration of roadless acreage in the East, about 154,658 acres. Potential increases in vehicles on the steep slopes would lead to severe erosion, damaging both trails and streams. - The Forest Services is severely underfunded. The agency has a $9 billion maintenance backlog on 370,000 miles of road already under its purview. Muddy runoff from unmaintained roads pollutes streams and degrades adjacent ecosystems. - Local control will not be sufficient. While staff decision-making at the forest level is important to address localized conditions, it is not an adequate substitute for a national conservation-oriented initiative such as the Roadless Rule. Further, the current administration’s policies have added blanket mandates on the agency while simultaneously cutting the workforce, scientific capacity, and budget. Keep roadless areas roadless please. For the animals. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

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

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

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

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

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

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