Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-325049

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 5/24Owed an answerPosted September 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

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

A2 moderate: Hard to dismiss — it shows cause and effect.

Owed an answer on Evidence.

Standard dismissals it defeats

  • Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
  • 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “Roads fragment habitats and cars kill wildlife”
    • “likely to adversely affect 327 threatened and endangered species”
    • “71 designated critical habitats are at risk”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “as the density of roads increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of fire ignitions”
    • “Vehicles can accidentally throw sparks”
    • “people drop their cigarette butts and leave campfires unattended”
  • Tribal Sovereignty
    • “majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition”
    • “ancestral homelands and landscapes”
    • “express reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “losses in revenue for local businesses from tourism”
    • “cost of new road construction”
    • “$7 billion USFS road maintenance backlog”

The comment

I am writing to oppose the USDA’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule), which established broad prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting within inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. I have worked in the conservation field for over 20 years, but more importantly, I am a parent and family member of US citizens who have an appreciation for wildlife and public health and recreation and tourism and our rural and indigenous communities. The government’s own analysis makes the case against rescinding the roadless rule: * Wildfire. The DEIS states that “as the density of roads increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of fire ignitions.” Vehicles can accidentally throw sparks, and people drop their cigarette butts and leave campfires unattended. These are all ignition sources that are much less likely to happen without roads. * Wildlife. Roads fragment habitats and cars kill wildlife. The DEIS states that rescinding the Roadless Rule is “likely to adversely affect” 327 threatened and endangered species, including the northern spotted owl, grizzly bears, and various fish species. Additionally, 71 designated critical habitats are at risk. This map from Defenders of Wildlife ties specific at-risk species to the roadless areas that could be impacted. * Economics. The DEIS estimates that between $5-$11 million in revenue could be generated through new logging projects in roadless areas. This number pales in comparison to the current $7 billion USFS road maintenance backlog, the cost of new road construction, and the losses in revenue for local businesses from tourism. * Tribal Sovereignty. Though opinions among Tribes are not monolithic, the DEIS states that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission.” Roadless areas across the country are important to Tribal communities as ancestral homelands and landscapes where they express reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. I hope you will respect what I believe will be a resounding rejection of this proposal to rescind the roadless rule. Sincerely, Heather Tausig

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