Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted October 7, 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 eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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 decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe 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 shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
My name is Sara Mansfield and I live just a few miles away from the Deschutes National Forest, home to many designated wilderness areas and roadless areas. These areas are important to the quality life and economic health of our region. In addition, many roadless areas around the Western U.S. along with the very IDEA of a roadless area, are among my top values and concerns as a U.S. citizen.
I have concerns regarding the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. While the stated intent is to give each individual National Forest area easier management of the lands within their jurisdiction, I believe, thanks to many examples set so far by the current administration, that there is high potential for mismanagement, speculation, undue corporate stakeholder pressure, and inappropriate actions which will have long term ecological, social, and financial consequences. Look at the current state of the backyard of the White House. Look at the swath of habitat bulldozed in Big Bend National Park. That is not what I want my National Forests to look like. That is not what I want my tax money supporting.
What is the reason for proposing this change to the USDA rule? The idea that the need for roads to allow active management for wildfire risk, spread of insects and diseases, and community protection is nonsensical as increased vehicle access creates a higher risk for these issues.
In my opinion, the Executive Orders 14225 and 14154 are a thoughtless, greedy, and simplistic approach to draining America’s timber resources. The so-called ‘heavy-handed Federal policies’ are the reasons there are still timber stands left today.
Who has weighed in on the pros and cons of removing the 2001 Roadless Rule? What do those in favor stand to gain from opening some of our public lands up to . Why are the many voices speaking up against this, including those in the supporting documents presented here, being ignored or minimized?
If the argument is that individual units of National Forest have changing needs, why not let the roadless rule stand and allow States and areas continue to use the legal system to sort out management exceptions or additions?
Why not provide the National Forest Service with budget increases to allow more effective management that operates within the Roadless Rule? Staff and equipment
Reading the supporting documents reveals many arguments against rescinding the roadless rule, including “lost economic benefits” and “increased user conflicts”
I’m also concerned by the argument in favor of removing the rule that removing it doesn’t guarantee changes will be made, but that “other situations like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act may do so.” It feels like a ruse, telling the American one thing, knowing a majority of citizens and residents would be against it, while clearly planning another.
Finally, thanks to the Constitution, government is for the people, by the people, not for the profit. I need my government to remember that. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.