Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-344619

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Posted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

In short: The comment establishes that the commenter is a resident with property adjacent to the Plumas National Forest, specifically noting that the Grizzly Peak Inventoried Roadless Area is only 8 miles from their property, thereby documenting their local standing and the specific geographic location of their concern.

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

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

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
- “increasing the number of roads in the forest will only increase our already extremely high fire risk”
- “It is incorrect that building additional roads in this area will reduce wildfire risk”
- “Most forest fires are human-caused, and very often they are started along the side of a U.S. Forest Service Road”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “increasing the number of roads in an already highly fragmented landscape will result in more negative impacts on nearby plant and animal communities”
- “threats to plant and animal species, including nesting songbirds, goshawk, and mule deer”
- “encroachment of invasive species”
Resource Development Extraction
- “increasing the number of roads will only widen the scope of resource extraction on our forest”
- “facilitate an increase in mining and logging on the forest”
Climate Carbon Storage
- “contribute to climate change”
- “Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will... contribute to climate change”

What it names

National Forests: Plumas National Forest
Roadless areas: Grizzly Peak

The comment

Shaded passages are the ones the analysis quoted as evidence for a dimension: Legal

Secretary Brooke Rollins Acting Director of Ecosystem Management Coordination Joshua White US Department of Agriculture Docket ID: RIN 0596-AD66 Title: Keep 2001 Roadless Rule Intact Dear Secretary and Chief: As a resident whose property is adjacent to the Plumas National Forest, there are two grave dangers to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule that will directly impact me. First, increasing the number of roads in the forest will only increase our already extremely high fire risk. The second is that increasing the number of roads in an already highly fragmented landscape will result in more negative impacts on nearby plant and animal communities that contribute to ecosystem integrity that already suffers from issues related to roads. It is incorrect that building additional roads in this area will reduce wildfire risk. The Plumas National Forest contains over 4,500 miles of roads. That means, in our little corner of the world, with a population of only about 20,000 people there are enough roads to drive from San Francisco to New York and halfway back again. Nevertheless, the 2021 Dixie Fire burned nearly one million acres despite the presence of these roads. More roads are obviously not the answer. Most forest fires are human-caused, and very often they are started along the side of a U.S. Forest Service Road. The 2017 Minerva and associated fires on Plumas National Forest were started by an arsonist driving around on USFS Roads. I would not want to experience the results of an arsonist driving up to Grizzly Peak Inventoried Roadless Area only 8 miles from our property. More roads mean a more highly fragmented forest with the consequent increase in threats to plant and animal species, including nesting songbirds, goshawk, and mule deer. These impacts include noise, dust, physical disturbance by humans and their pets, encroachment of invasive species, impaired water quality, erosion, and increased risk of fire. In addition to these concerns, increasing the number of roads will only widen the scope of resource extraction on our forest and contribute to climate change. Rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule will increase the risk of forest fires on Plumas National Forest, increase impacts of forest fragmentation, facilitate an increase in mining and logging on the forest, and contribute to climate change. Our public lands within the 2001 Roadless Area designation are invaluable and must be protected. Please maintain the nationwide protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule.