FS-2025-0001-613582

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am a resident of Blacksburg, Virginia. I am particularly concerned about rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule because I am an avid fisherman and spend considerable time fishing the mountain streams of Virginia. More than any other waterway, the clear, rocky mountain streams provide an exceptional angling experience. These streams are not only incredibly beautiful, but they also sustain healthy populations of Virginia’s state fish, the brook trout. Brook trout are highly sensitive to changes in water quality and stream habitat. Increased sedimentation, rising water temperatures, loss of surrounding tree cover, and chemical pollutants can all negatively affect trout populations and can result from road construction and the industrial activities that roads facilitate. For these reasons, brook trout populations have declined across much of their historic range, making the protection of high-quality remaining habitat especially important. Many of Virginia’s remaining pristine brook trout waters are located on lands protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. One of my personal favorite streams to fish is located within a roadless area of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. The protection provided by the Roadless Rule helps preserve these streams and their surrounding watersheds from degradation associated with road construction and extractive activities. These lands are valuable not only for ecological reasons, but also for recreation and the economies of rural communities. Anglers travel from across Virginia and the United States to fish for wild brook trout in the Appalachian Mountains. Maintaining high-quality, accessible public lands therefore provides recreational opportunities while supporting local businesses and rural economies. Finally, I am concerned that wildfire reduction is being presented as a justification for rescinding the Roadless Rule. In Virginia, wildfire is not a significant concern, and I do not believe that a nationwide rescission of the Roadless Rule is an appropriate response. If wildfire reduction is the primary justification for changing the Roadless Rule, I believe any changes should be targeted to areas where wildfire poses a significant risk rather than applied uniformly across the entire United States. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I instead support Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, and urge the Forest Service to retain the existing protections for our remaining roadless areas.