Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Posted 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.
I wholeheartedly oppose rescinding or altering the roadless rule. If anything, I support *expanding* conservation and further limiting commercial logging and drilling in our wilderness areas.
I have lived in Wyoming almost my whole life and have grown up around National Parks and wilderness areas. I have hiked and camped in Yellowstone National Park since I was a child, I have spent countless hours enjoying the Bridger-Teton National Forest as an adolescent (as it was only a few minutes by car from my childhood home) and have recently taken up backpacking in the Bighorn National Forest as an adult.
Time and time again, I have heard tourists remark how special these forests are, how there is simply nothing like them in the entire world, and how fortunate we are to have them in our backyard. I completely agree, and it is beyond my comprehension that anyone who has ever marveled at the roadless wilderness in Wyoming could possibly have a hand in undoing this monumental conservation effort.
However, politicians from Wyoming are doing just that. And only to serve corporate interests, not the will of Wyoming residents or the American people. According to Oregon Wild, "When the Clinton Administration first proposed the Roadless Rule back in 2000, it received well over a million public comments supporting the rule, more than any administrative proposal in US history at the time. When the Trump Administration initially proposed rescinding the Roadless Rule last September, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments urging that the Roadless Rule be retained." I have never heard one single Wyoming resident (except Hageman) advocating for the revocation of the Roadless Rule. Rather, by and large, Wyoming wants to protect our public lands and wildlife.
In addition to ignoring the desire of the American people, altering or rescinding the Roadless Rule would also
:-Increase wildfire risks: Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start by a roadway rather than in a roadless area. I would like to emphasize that there is now common parlance to say that we do not have a summer in the West, we have a "fire season".
-Endanger wildlife: Currently, the Roadless Rule protects intact complex ecosystems and sensitive species from the habitat degradation and fragmentation that they currently face in other parts of the world. Running roads through these fragile ecosystems with the intention to log or otherwise harm these habitats is antithetical to the spirit of American conservation championed by President Roosevelt and upheld by the American people.
-Threaten drinking water: The Roadless Rule helps protect clean watersheds that provide drinking water to millions of Americans. Road construction, development, drilling, mining, and commercial logging are all threats to clean, drinkable watersheds.
These are unacceptable risks to our way of life in Wyoming. For these reasons, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS is a huge mistake. Once again, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule, and of the 3, I ONLY support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.”