Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-374890

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 13, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 43 submissions in its group. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

  • Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
  • Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
  • EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
  • Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
  • EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
  • RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
  • AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
  • LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A0 none: Counted, not answered. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.

Still open to the agency

  • Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
  • Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
  • No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
  • Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
  • Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “fire prone area”
    • “wildfires are more than four times as likely to occur in areas with roads”
    • “rescinding this rule could directly endanger my family”
    • “difficult if not impossible to effectively fight fires”
  • Public Opinion Support
    • “American People overwhelmingly support this rule”
    • “nearly 75% of people preferring the roadless rule remain in place”
    • “take the popular position of maintaining the roadless rule”
  • National Security Public Safety
    • “directly endanger my family and our neighbors”
    • “protect not just our national forests, but the people who live amongst them”
    • “Fire is a constant and pervasive threat”

What it names

National Forests
Coronado National Forest

The comment

Mr. Schultz, Please keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact by opting for Alternative 1. I live in a fire prone area along the US-Mexico border, with Coronado National Forest literally bordering our backyard. Our home was spared during the 2011 Monument Fire, however it burned down trees within 15 feet of our house. Fire is a constant and pervasive threat in Southern Arizona, and the canyons here are particularly difficult if not impossible to effectively fight fires in once they’ve begun. As wildfires are more than four times as likely to occur in areas with roads, rescinding this rule could directly endanger my family and our neighbors. The American People overwhelmingly support this rule and our public lands, with nearly 75% of people preferring the roadless rule remain in place. I ask that you please take the popular position of maintaining the roadless rule, and help protect not just our national forests, but the people who live amongst them. Sincerely, Brett Thompson 5179 E Lower Stump Canyon Rd Hereford, AZ 85615 bthompson8@gmail.com

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless