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 comments11 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 3middle half 3–3 · 1 scored

Topics raised

11 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–11Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-571793
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 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Fort Collins Colorado and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes wildlife watching. I value the natural world and have deep respect for all beings. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Undisturbed habitat is critical for the health and well-being of all species. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-577424
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Madison, Wisconsin and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and wildlife watching. I strongly support having protected, roadless wild areas for wildlife and the people who cherish hiking in these lands. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Roadless areas provide intact habitat for wildlife; roads would fragment these lands. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-577550
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Park City, UT and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and camping. Our National Forest lands are a precious resource vital for wildlife habitat and for outdoor recreation and adventure enjoyed by millions of Americans and visitors from other countries. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. They provide a peace and solitude that is therapeutic in our constantly on-line and developing world. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-578933
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Draper, Utah and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, hunting or fishing, camping, wildlife watching, and living in or near a National Forest community. Our National Forest lands are a national resource first and foremost and a local resource secondly. They should be managed accordingly. I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. We don't need more roads than what exist currently. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-578994
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Draper, Utah and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, hunting or fishing, camping, wildlife watching, and living in or near a National Forest community. Our National Forest lands are a national resource first and foremost and a local resource secondly. They should be managed accordingly. I am concerned about the cost of expanding the National Forest road system. We don't need more roads than what exist currently. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-580344
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Lansing MI and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes wildlife watching. I value having places where I can get away from roads and development and experience nature, fresh air, and clean running water. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Healthy, undeveloped watersheds are important for clean water and fish habitat. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Hiking provides a kind of solitude and backcountry experience that roaded landscapes cannot. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-581347
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in American Fork, Utah and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and camping. I appreciate unspoiled natural areas that wildlife can benefit from. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. I don't want animals getting hit my cars and not able to roam freely. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-581998
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Missoula MT and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking, camping, wildlife watching, and living in or near a National Forest community. Having access to our forests is vital to my well being and life. Spending time exploring the beauty that abounds in Montana is a spiritual reckoning. It is what makes Montana so special. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. We need to respect and protect our wildlife habitats. They are what makes Montana so precious. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Accessibility to recreational areas are essential to our Montana lifestyle. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-583398
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Anchorage, Alaska and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes camping, wildlife watching, and living in or near a National Forest community. Protecting natural areas is critical maintaining a healthy ecosystem that provides a multitude of benefits to humans and wildlife. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. I have worked at a nonprofit dedicated to maintaining the health of local waterways in the Municipality of Anchorage for nearly 30 years. Roads and their associated issues perpetually threaten the health of these waterways and the aquatic habitat. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-586397
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Durham NC and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking. I value having untouched lands that will be there for my children and grandchildren. Mount Zion is one place that has shaped my views on this proposal. It is within the Mount Zion Inventoried Roadless Area in Olympic National Forest. The sheer beauty of nature away from civilization. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Once changed we can’t return these lands to their natural state. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-587831
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
I live in Memphis, TN and am writing to urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. My connection to National Forest lands includes hiking and backpacking and wildlife watching. I value being in nature and seeing wildlife for both environmental reasons and for personal leisure. I am concerned about wildlife habitat and landscape connectivity. Large connected landscapes are crucial to wildlife well-being. I am concerned about clean water and healthy watersheds. Undeveloped watersheds are essential for clean water for humans and aquatic animals. Roadless areas matter to me for recreation and the experiences they provide. Wildnerness and roadless areas provide opportunities for healthy and serene recreation. I am concerned about how USDA is weighing wildfire, management flexibility, and the effects of increased access. Roads can create additional opportunities for wildfire ignition. Before rescinding the national rule, I would like USDA to answer this question: Why are the Roadless Rule's existing exceptions insufficient to meet legitimate wildfire, public safety, and forest-management needs? For these reasons, I urge USDA to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and select the No Action Alternative. Thank you for considering my comments.
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.