Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-603554

Opposes rescissionA3 weakSubstance 12/24Owed an answerPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the agency's Cost Benefit Analysis fails to account for a $6.9 billion road maintenance backlog, ignores documented ecological impacts on elk, mule deer, and bear in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and omits the consideration of reliance interests despite soliciting them, thereby failing to reconcile the proposal with its own data and legal precedents.

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

A3 weak: Substantive, but easier to set aside.

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.
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.
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.
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
- “fragment their social structures”
- “elk survival rates rose during a road closure”
- “roads built for extraction may alter migration routes”
- “open roads increase contact, conflict, habituation, and ultimately mortality”
Water Quality Quantity
- “soil and cover of unroaded country filter what flows downstream”
- “roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment”
- “1,522 municipal water intakes in the Pacific Northwest region sit in watersheds”
- “depend on clean, cold, undisturbed water”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion”
- “construction that cannot demonstrate a net benefit”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “beautiful, quiet, and isolated”
- “untrammeled ground that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was built to protect”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “what remains wild there must not be handed over to roads and extraction”

What it names

National Forests: Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Roadless areas: Grande RondeUpper Grande Ronde

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 Sixty years of returning to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, watching it become more frequented as more Americans discover its beauty, has given me a conviction that what remains wild there must not be handed over to roads and extraction. My grandfather hunted elk and deer on the forested slopes near the Grande Ronde River. I hiked and camped there as a girl with my mother and sisters, in country that was beautiful, quiet, and isolated. The Tower wilderness area, all 52 acres of it, and the Upper Grande Ronde wilderness area, 11,723 acres in the same forest, represent exactly the kind of untrammeled ground that the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was built to protect. I am writing to oppose its rescission without reservation. The economic case for this rescission cannot bear examination. The agency's own record states that "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." Against that marginal production, the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects timber revenue to the Forest Service of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year, set against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value ranging from negative $92 million to positive $199 million. That range does not establish a net benefit. It also does not account for a road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion. I ask the agency to reconcile this proposal with its own numbers and explain how construction that cannot demonstrate a net benefit justifies expanding a system the agency already cannot afford to maintain. The agency has tried state-by-state approaches before and failed in court. Its own record states that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible one-size-fits-all nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." Oregon alone holds 211 inventoried roadless areas totaling 1,937,741 acres, and 1,522 municipal water intakes in the Pacific Northwest region sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Fragmenting that protection through local decision-making is precisely what the Ninth Circuit rejected. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies identified in that prior litigation. I think about clean water every time I think about that forest. The soil and cover of unroaded country filter what flows downstream, and what flows downstream eventually reaches people. The agency's own analysis finds that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. That sediment enters the same watersheds that feed municipal intakes and the same streams where the animals I have watched for sixty years, elk, mule deer, bear, the mink and beaver and birds of the Tower area, depend on clean, cold, undisturbed water. The agency must account for these downstream consequences and explain what replaces the filtration function that intact roadless watersheds currently provide. The Tower area's 52 acres are already small. Putting a road through it would break up the habitat of mule deer, cougar, bobcat, bear, and the many other creatures that cross that ground, and fragment their social structures. The agency's own citation found elk survival rates rose during a road closure and fell again when the gates were removed. Its own record on mule deer documents that roads built for extraction may alter migration routes and increase movement speed. Its own record on bear notes that open roads increase contact, conflict, habituation, and ultimately mortality. What this proposal would do to what remains of that country is not a projection. The agency has already documented the mechanism. I expect a direct response on how the proposal addresses these findings as they apply to the inventoried roadless areas in the Wallowa-Whitman. Finally, my sixty years of returning to this forest, and my grandfather's generation before me, are precisely the kind of reliance interest the agency invited when it solicited, in its own words, "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" at 91 FR 53830-31, and then weighed none of them in its Cost Benefit Analysis. Under the legal standards governing agency reversals, that omission is not a procedural footnote. These comments, and the thousands like them, must be identified, considered, and weighed before any final action is taken. Our public lands belong to generations to come, and this generation has not been given the authority to trade them away for less than half a percent of national timber output. Sincerely, Polly Estabrook, Los Angeles, CA