The No Action alternative is the only choice for Proposed Rule. Without the current Roadless Rule in place, our National Forests would have been fragmented. It would be a shadow of the current National Forest System that is envied across the world. It is also the economic generator of arguably the biggest contributor to the national GDP in the outdoor recreation industry. It supports communities more sustainably than extractive industries with their boom and bust economic cycles. Most tourism to the forests anymore is year round, providing a steady source of income to the gateway communities and their businesses.
Without the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, some of the highest visited areas - ski areas, mountain lakes and rivers, open meadows, and rocky peaks would be exploited as the "cheaper" alternative for businesses wanting to maximize their profits at the expense of the landowners of the American Federal Lands Legacy. The Code Of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.10) defines the Forest Service as a multiple use management agency, balancing timber, wildlife, recreation, range and watershed resources. No where in the mission of the Forest Service does it say we are to maximize commercial value of public lands, provide land for data centers, allow private developments, etc. In fact, the motto of the Agency is "Caring for the Land and Serving the People" and there is a reason it is in that order. The CFR further states the Agency "....must provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses". The Agency has a sustainable use mandate. In my 32 year career with the Agency we pushed back on pipelines, highways, cell towers, windmill farms, and other encroachments because there were other locations available outside the National Forests. One thing needed for all of those things was new road access, which in many cases was fortunately limited by the Roadless Rule. We were just perceived as the cheaper alternative. Our national forest laws and policies guide us to provide sustainable use for the common good, for generations to come WHILE protecting natural systems.
As NEPA, ESA, and other protections have been weakened, keeping the Roadless Area Conservation Rule intact is even more important. There is no scientific fact that rescinding the Roadless Rule will reduce wildfires. The Agency already can grant road access for projects that contribute to the management and goals of the Agency, like fire and timber. Having the Roadless Rule in place gives the Agency the ability to review project proposals, work to collaborate to move forward with the solution that can achieve the goals of the project proposal and protect the ecosystems that are so important for sustaining our communities and forests. Implementation of policies can always be streamlined in my opinion, but streamlining should never weaken or violate the reasons those lands were preserved for the national population.