Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Posted September 29, 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.
As a Wyoming native and lifelong user of roadless areas, I am writing to urge you to select the no action alternative to keep the roadless rule intact and unchanged. The long-term value of roadless areas is unquantifiable, and yet certainly worth far more over time than allowing roads and the development they would bring.
I’ve heard politicians say roadless areas contribute to fires, but I don’t think science bears that out. These same politicians ignore climate change and its devastating effects on wild places and wildlife. The push to do away with roadless areas is a political move unsupported by science. We know wildlife do better when human contact is minimized, and we know that saving resources for future generations makes our planet healthier.
Please reject the greed-driven, political maneuvering aimed at doing away with the roadless rule. We need this rule left intact for the health of our wild resources and future generations.
Thank you.
Jeff Troxel
4216 Pat Ohara Mountain Dr
Cody, WY 82414
307-272-9774