My name is Craig Fergus I am a residence of Front Royal Virginia and I'm writing to oppose the recession to the roadless rule. I often hike in the George Washington National Forest taking advantage of its numerous roadless areas to enjoy deeper areas of nature and can be found in other locations. However my appreciation for the continuation of the roadless rule is based primarily on the ecosystem services provided by these lower impact zones. As a wildlife biologist who has studied the impacts of roads on wildlife species, I believe the extent to which these areas contribute to healthy water quality, limit fragmentation, and in general support functioning ecosystems in a way that areas impacted by roadways cannot is something that should not be thrown away lightly. The most substantive argument I have seen for the change to the rule is one of improved fire control. However the Forest Services own research (Long-term forest health implications of roadlessness, Healey 2020) found that roadless and non-roadless areas had equal likelihood of burning. It also found that roadless areas had significantly lower numbers of invasive species. So if the agency's own data doesn't support the decision, why make the change? So again, I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support “Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.”