I emphatically oppose the proposed rescinding of the Roadless Rule. None of the Trump Administration's justifications for rescinding the Roadless Rule are valid, and none of them are supported by science. Substantially more forest cover is lost to wildfire in roaded forests than roadless; the cost of building new or reopening decommissioned roads exceeds the value of merchantable timber available for harvest by orders of magnitude in the vast majority of cases; and we need more, not fewer, wild places preserved by limiting motorized access. I call on Congress and the President to preserve the Roadless Rule in its current form.