Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-495422

Opposes rescissionA2 moderateSubstance 13/24Owed an answerPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment documents that the agency's DEIS and Cost Benefit Analysis contain internal contradictions regarding wildfire risk, economic net benefits, and small entity impacts, and asserts that the agency failed to weigh the reliance interests of commenters as required by administrative law.

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

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “steep trails inside Chico, Lion Ridge, and Mill Creek... are where my wife and I go to get away”
- “We want our kids to inherit that same experience”
- “recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year”
- “recreation my family depends on”
Wildlife Habitat
- “I look for birds”
- “road-noise experiments... cut bird abundance by over a quarter”
- “31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely”
- “documented relationship between road presence and the decline of forested bird communities”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires”
- “human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands”
- “far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas”
- “justified in part on fuels management grounds”
Legal Regulatory Framework
- “regulatory flexibility certification compounds the problem”
- “agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created”
- “The agency should withdraw that certification”
- “binding administrative law”

What it names

National Forests: Sequoia National Forest
Roadless areas: Lion RidgeMill Creek

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 The steep trails inside Chico, Lion Ridge, and Mill Creek in Sequoia National Forest are where my wife and I go to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city. The intensity of those climbs is the point. We love the workout the forests provide, and in those same hours my wife photographs lakes, ponds, and trees while I look for birds. We want our kids to inherit that same experience, and this proposal puts it at risk without a credible justification for doing so. The agency's own record undermines its stated rationale on wildfire. The DEIS states plainly: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." If the proposal is justified in part on fuels management grounds, the agency must explain why it departs from that finding, and it must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I photograph birds in these forests, and the DEIS cites findings that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely, and that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat. Chico alone covers 39,836 acres, Lion Ridge 5,265, and Mill Creek 27,643 acres of Sequoia National Forest. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The birds I go looking for, the water those forests protect, and the recreation my family depends on are all implicated here. I ask the agency to address in its final record what it intends to do about the documented relationship between road presence and the decline of forested bird communities in the areas this rule currently protects. The economics of this proposal do not hold together. The DEIS itself states "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." The agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. That range cannot establish a net benefit, and the road system this proposal would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency must reconcile those numbers publicly before this proposal advances. The regulatory flexibility certification compounds the problem. 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. That certification was reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than assessing the businesses actually holding permits in the affected areas. The agency should withdraw that certification and replace it with one grounded in the actual permit holders operating in these roadless areas. Finally, The proposal 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. My family has built our expectations around these places remaining intact. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and received 1.6 million comments before establishing this rule. It has held none to undo it. Under binding administrative law, an agency changing course must assess the reliance interests its prior policy created. This comment is one such interest, and the agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it proceeds further. Sincerely, Rob Michaelis Los Angeles, CA