Read the comments.

I am a student studying environmental studies and I am concerned about the environmental impacts of road construction in forests currently protected by the Roadless Rule. I strongly support the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) in the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement. While the proposed rescission claims to address conservation objectives such as preserving the diversity of plant and animal species, peer-reviewed research demonstrates that removing Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) protections will directly contradict this objective. For example, Watson et al. find that “There is a direct correlation between the risk of species extinction and human footprint. Impacts such as direct habitat loss, habitat degradation through increased isolation of plant and animal populations, greater exposure to edge effects, and invasion by disturbance-adapted species are cumulative, leading to degraded ecosystems over time and, eventually, loss of regional connectivity and biodiversity” (doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x). Additionally, Dietz et al. find that, “Of the 537 wildlife species of conservation concern in the contiguous United States, 308 species (57%) have at least some suitable habitat in one or more inventoried roadless areas. Despite their geographic and elevational clustering and predominance of a single biome type, IRAs provide a larger proportion of suitable habitat for multiple wildlife SCCs than non-IRA lands. If all IRAs were added to the protected-area system, there would be a substantial decrease (−38) in the number of wildlife SCCs that are currently considered 'poorly represented' in protected areas.” (doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943) As a concerned student who cares about nature, I urge the USDA to maintain 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protections in full.

I am a student and climate advocate who supports the protection of the environment and the residents within them whether that is a human life, wildlife, or the natural world. I strongly support the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) in the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement. While the proposed rescission claims to address conservation objectives such as preserving the diversity of plant and animal species, peer-reviewed research demonstrates that removing Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) protections will directly contradict this objective. For example, Watson et al. find that “There is a direct correlation between the risk of species extinction and human footprint. Impacts such as direct habitat loss, habitat degradation through increased isolation of plant and animal populations, greater exposure to edge effects, and invasion by disturbance-adapted species are cumulative, leading to degraded ecosystems over time and, eventually, loss of regional connectivity and biodiversity” (doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x) Again, I am a student who wishes to keep these forests as they are, to protect everything around and inside of these forests, and we can build roads around them.

I am a student studying environmental science/biology/forestry and I am concerned about the environmental impacts of road construction in forests currently protected by the Roadless Rule I strongly support the No Action alternative (Alternative 1) in the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement. While the proposed rescission claims to address conservation objectives such as preserving the diversity of plant and animal species, peer-reviewed research demonstrates that removing Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) protections will directly contradict this objective. For example, Watson et al. find that “There is a direct correlation between the risk of species extinction and human footprint. Impacts such as direct habitat loss, habitat degradation through increased isolation of plant and animal populations, greater exposure to edge effects, and invasion by disturbance-adapted species are cumulative, leading to degraded ecosystems over time and, eventually, loss of regional connectivity and biodiversity” (doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x). Additionally, Dietz et al. find that, “Of the 537 wildlife species of conservation concern in the contiguous United States, 308 species (57%) have at least some suitable habitat in one or more inventoried roadless areas. Despite their geographic and elevational clustering and predominance of a single biome type, IRAs provide a larger proportion of suitable habitat for multiple wildlife SCCs than non-IRA lands. If all IRAs were added to the protected-area system, there would be a substantial decrease (−38) in the number of wildlife SCCs that are currently considered 'poorly represented' in protected areas.” (doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01943) As an outdoor scientist / concerned student / person who cares about nature, I urge the USDA to maintain 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protections in full. -Concerned citizen