Read the comments.

I oppose fully or partially rescinding the roadless rule because it would: Remove protections for 45 million acres of the wildest and most intact public lands across our National Forests, allow road construction, development, and commercial logging in currently protected inventoried Roadless Areas; Increase fire risk in backcountry forests. The Roadless Rule helps protect areas that are fire resilient and less prone to wildfire ignitions. Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest, and logging can increase fire hazard; Allow increased logging and roads that threaten clean drinking water sources. The Roadless Rule helps safeguard watersheds that provide drinking water, impair habitat for sensitive species and degrade our most intact and resilient ecosystems. Roadless areas provide some of the last best habitat areas that are still developing under the natural processes and landscape patterns that wildlife evolved with. Opening roadless areas to logging and road-building will create more degraded and fragmented habitat that is already vastly over-abundant, threaten Indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. The draft EIS states that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission”; Increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system already has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service already lacks enough staff and funds to maintain existing roads, and building more roads in forests will only increase that backlog; Ignore the will of the American public. 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 preserved.

I am writing to oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Eliminating the Roadless Rule would: • Threaten Indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. • Increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system already has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service already lacks enough staff and funds to maintain existing roads.

Dear all I am writing to oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Eliminating the Roadless Rule would: · Threaten Indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. · Increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system already has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service already lacks enough staff and funds to maintain existing roads.

I am writing to oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Eliminating the Roadless Rule would: • Threaten Indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. • Increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system already has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service already lacks enough staff and funds to maintain existing roads.

I oppose fully or partially rescinding the roadless rule because it would: Remove protections for 45 million acres of the wildest and most intact public lands across our National Forests, allow road construction, development, and commercial logging in currently protected inventoried Roadless Areas; Increase fire risk in backcountry forests. The Roadless Rule helps protect areas that are fire resilient and less prone to wildfire ignitions. Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest, and logging can increase fire hazard; Allow increased logging and roads that threaten clean drinking water sources. The Roadless Rule helps safeguard watersheds that provide drinking water, impair habitat for sensitive species and degrade our most intact and resilient ecosystems. Roadless areas provide some of the last best habitat areas that are still developing under the natural processes and landscape patterns that wildlife evolved with. Opening roadless areas to logging and road-building will create more degraded and fragmented habitat that is already vastly over-abundant, threaten Indigenous cultural values and sources of traditional foods, fiber, and medicines. The draft EIS states that “the majority sentiment among Tribal governments consulted is opposition to the proposed rescission”; Increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system already has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service already lacks enough staff and funds to maintain existing roads, and building more roads in forests will only increase that backlog; Ignore the will of the American public. 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 preserved.