1. United States
2. Mont.
3. Letter

Block the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule before the September 21 comment deadline. The Forest Service's own 333-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement dismantles every argument the administration is making for this rollback — and you should be saying so publicly. Start with the wildfire claim, because it's the administration's lead argument and it falls apart on page one of their own analysis. The DEIS states directly that "as the density of roads increases so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions," and that roadless areas already see fewer wildfire starts than other national forest land. The agency's scientists are contradicting the administration's sales pitch in writing. The economic case is just as hollow. The rule might generate $5 to $11 million a year in new timber revenue — against a $7 billion road maintenance backlog the Forest Service already can't fund. Not to mention that much of the timber in these roadless areas has been deemed economically unviable to harvest in the first place. Taxpayers eat the difference either way. Add $9 million or more annually in lost visitor spending, threats to treaty-protected Tribal hunting and fishing rights, likely harm to 327 threatened and endangered species, and degraded drinking water for millions of Americans. Seventy-six percent of voters — Republicans, Democrats, and independents — oppose this rollback. Over 99 percent of public commenters opposed it last year. The science, the economics, and the public are all pointing the same direction. This rule should not move forward.