Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-306030

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 2, 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

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

Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “safeguarded critical ecosystems”
- “biodiversity for over two decades”
- “fragments vital wildlife migration corridors”
- “intact backcountry forests”
Water Quality Quantity
- “water supplies”
- “increases soil erosion into public watersheds”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “I frequently hunt, fish, and hike in wilderness areas”
- “final places we can roam without feeling suffocated”
- “see wild life acting like they should be”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “reject the premise that dismantling this national safeguard is a necessary or effective tool for wildfire prevention”
- “contradicts established science regarding human-caused fire risks”
- “existing agency flexibilities already permit necessary localized vegetation management”

The comment

My name is Andrew Beeman and I live in Harrisburg, South Dakota. I am writing to express my deep opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. Public lands and intact backcountry forests matter to me because I love the outdoors. I frequently hunt, fish, and hike in wilderness areas. My favorite peak, black elk peak here in the black hills of South Dakota is my favorite to climb. I believe these wilderness areas are the final places we can roam without feeling suffocated by the modern world. These are the last places we can see wild life acting like they should be. For that reason is why I love wilderness areas the what they provide to the our outdoor world. Fully or partially rescinding these protections across nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands is a severe mistake. The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully safeguarded critical ecosystems, water supplies, and biodiversity for over two decades. I reject the premise that dismantling this national safeguard is a necessary or effective tool for wildfire prevention or localized forest health. Building industrial logging roads into remote, intact areas fragments vital wildlife migration corridors, increases soil erosion into public watersheds, and contradicts established science regarding human-caused fire risks. Furthermore, existing agency flexibilities already permit necessary localized vegetation management where communities face genuine risk. Instead of moving forward with this rollback, the agency should select Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Andrew Beeman 734 w willow st unit 3 Harrisburg, SD 57032 Hunter and conservationist.