Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-475107

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted September 23, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Carries the letter's score — A copy of a family's letter; it holds the score and answerability level of the letter it sent.

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. This rating is the one its shared letter earned.

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
- “affect wildlife habitat”
- “advocate for the conservation of these lands”
- “retain the existing Roadless Rule protections”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “value what this forest offers to our residence for tourism”
- “reduce recreation opportunities”
- “places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean drinking water”
- “Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities”
Scientific Research Evidence
- “rich with research opportunities”
- “As an environmental scientist”

What it names

National Forests: Sumter National Forest
Roadless areas: Bee Cove

The comment

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am a resident of South Carolina and associated with the SCDES am very concerned about the proposal to undo the Roadless Rule because I value what this forest offers to our residence for tourism, health and the rich history of the state. Specifically I have been impacted by the Roadless Area in Bee Cove in Sumter National Forest (Southern Forest) With the Region Number 08. This area of 3,025 acres is rich with research opportunities and is personally important to me. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. As an environmental scientist it's within my interest to advocate for the conservation of these lands out of love for them and the benefits they offer to our residents. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections.