Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-578471

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 15/24Owed an answerPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's draft environmental impact statement contains internal contradictions regarding wildfire ignition rates and wildlife survival that are unreconciled with the proposed rescission, and documents specific reliance interests and economic impacts on local outfitters in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that the agency's regulatory flexibility certification fails to address.

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 Analytical gap, 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
- “grizzly bear "have suffered habitat loss and the extirpation or fragmentation of their populations"”
- “open roads in grizzly habitat increase contact, conflict, shooting, habituation, and food reward”
- “elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed”
- “paths of elk, lynx, and bears”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Hiking in the Beaver Creek and Tower wilderness areas... has given me something I cannot fully describe”
- “untrammeled vistas of granite slopes, with trees, and wildflowers and streams”
- “safeguard access for future generations and protect the untouched landscape”
- “lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “roads... are also the site of high rates of human-caused ignition”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “temporary road may be constructed to facilitate hazardous fuel reduction”
- “agency's own findings undercut that rationale”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “regulatory flexibility certification that accompanies this proposal cannot stand”
- “DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected”
- “specific small businesses whose receipts depend on the character of these specific places remaining intact”
- “Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year”

What it names

National Forests: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Roadless areas: Beaver Creek
Works cited: Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Specific placeLocal knowledgeEA analysisAnalytical gapEvidenceRequest

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Hiking in the Beaver Creek and Tower wilderness areas of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for the last 62 years, first with my mother and sisters when I was young and then as an adult with my daughter and nieces and nephews, has given me something I cannot fully describe and will not easily surrender. Those hikes taught me to understand and value the role national forests play in all of our lives: delivering clean air and water and protecting the ecosystems upon which we depend. I am filing this comment in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001, because what is at stake in the Wallowa-Whitman is specific and irreplaceable, and because the agency's own record does not support what it proposes to do. Beaver Creek is 12,973 acres of isolated nature with lodgepole pines and granite cliffs. With an ever hopeful eye, you can see the paths of elk, lynx, and bears and perhaps catch a look at one of them. Tower, at 52 acres, is filled with alpine lakes and high altitude meadows with native flora, and all around are sounds of insects, birds, and small rodents. If permanent roads were built into these pristine out-back areas, it would completely alter the essence of the place. There would no longer be untrammeled vistas of granite slopes, with trees, and wildflowers and streams. That loss is not abstract. The agency's own environmental record states that wide-ranging mammals like the grizzly bear "have suffered habitat loss and the extirpation or fragmentation of their populations," and it further quotes the federal grizzly recovery plan to the effect that open roads in grizzly habitat increase contact, conflict, shooting, habituation, and food reward, ultimately ending in grizzly mortality. Elk, whose paths I have tracked at Beaver Creek, avoid areas near roads and select habitat away from them, and the agency's record found that elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. The agency must explain, in response to these comments, how rescission of the roadless rule is consistent with what its own biological analysis says about road presence and large mammal survival in exactly these landscapes. The proposal invokes wildfire management as justification for rescission, but the agency's own findings undercut that rationale. Its draft environmental impact statement states: "While roads allow more agile positioning of firefighting assets, they are also the site of high rates of human-caused ignition (Narayanaraj and Wimberly 2012), which account for 84% of US wildfires (Balch et al 2017)." The same DEIS reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The agency has not reconciled these findings with the direction it is now proposing, and I ask that it do so, specifically addressing the ignition data in DEIS Table 21. The proposal also gestures toward permitting burden, but the rule as written already accommodates the activities the agency says it cannot perform. A temporary road may be constructed to facilitate hazardous fuel reduction within 0.5 miles of the boundary of an at-risk community." Given these existing provisions, the agency should identify on the record, by name and category, which specific burdens the current rule's exceptions for public health, safety, existing mineral leases, and community wildfire protection do not already address, and it should quantify those burdens rather than assert them. The regulatory flexibility certification that accompanies this proposal cannot stand. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." Oregon holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and 1,522 municipal water intakes across the Pacific NW sit in watersheds with affected roadless areas. The guides and outfitters near Beaver Creek and Tower are specific small businesses whose receipts depend on the character of these specific places remaining intact. The agency should withdraw the certification and conduct a proper assessment of the entities actually operating in the affected areas. Finally, the proposal itself solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. I want the Wallowa-Whitman wilderness areas managed responsibly to safeguard access for future generations and protect the untouched landscape and ecosystems upon which we depend. That expectation was created by the rule that has been in place, and the agency is required to identify and weigh it. Let this comment stand as one the agency must address. Sincerely, Elizabeth Estabrook New York, NY