FS-2025-0001-601742

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a student at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry and have a deep connection to the lands protected by the Roadless Rule. I hike in the Adirondack Park and White Mountain National Forests with family, friends, and fellow members of my college's outdoor club and appreciate these spaces for their lack of roads and vehicles. Without the protection of these areas, my personal quality of life as well as that of millions of Americans and critical biodiversity would be severely impacted. Removing these protections would allow environmentally sensitive and revered areas to be exploited beyond the current rate by opening them to the potential of development and logging. Eliminating the Roadless Rule is also not an effective tool to help fire management, as the supporters of this action are saying, studies show that fires are 4 times more likely to begin near a road (Aplet et al., 2026. "Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads"). Removing the protection on our forests would also threaten watersheds that provide clean drinking water to millions of Americans, increase the burden on taxpayers to fund additional road maintenance, and threaten habitats for biodiversity and the Indigenous people and cultural values that rely on it. If the U.S. Government truly cares about its citizens, taxpayers, and their livelihood, it should keep the Roadless Rule as is and focus instead on promoting the conservation of U.S. land and biodiversity. Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake for the future of our land and people who rely on it. I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule. I support Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.