Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 To whom it may concern: I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them. Issue 1: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (hereafter “Roadless Rule rescission”) will result in increased habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat connectivity, and increased road-related mortality in a number of federally-listed species, including the Southern Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of fisher (Pekania pennanti), Bi-State distinct population segment of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae). Conservation assessments and strategies for these species have identified roads as significant sources of mortality and habitat fragmentation in these species. These significant impacts should be analyzed and addressed in the EIS, including in specific areas of concern – such as the Boundary Peak roadless area (Bi-state sage-grouse); Kings River, Dinkey Lakes, Black Mountain, and Greenhorn Creek roadless areas (Southern Sierra fisher); and San Joaquin and Hoover roadless areas (Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep). Additionally, I ask the agency evaluate impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission to big game populations, such as elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and moose. These impacts should be assessed to evaluate effects to habitat connectivity and population-level impacts in these species and how it may affect hunting and wildlife viewing activities by the public. Additionally, I ask that the agency evaluate impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission to federally-listed plant species, such as whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Lastly, I ask the agency to evaluate the impacts of the Roadless Rule rescission on species of conservation concern identified in revised Land Management Plans on national forests. Issue 2: I ask that the Roadless Rule rescission EIS evaluate cumulative effects of the proposed action with other recent agency-wide policy changes proposed by the U.S. Forest Service. In particular, these cumulative effects should include the proposed amendment to the existing Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) announced on August 21, 2026 on the agency’s website. It should also include cumulative effects of any other recent policy changes that broadly affect National Forest System roads, such as Land Management Plan revisions and amendments. Issue 3: The U.S. Forest Service’s own fire data shows that wildfire ignitions are closely associated with roads and road access. Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System lands against 3.0 fires per million acres inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024). The DEIS states that human-caused ignitions have increased in abundance with proximity to roads. The effects analysis itself concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. I ask that the agency quantify the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and weigh it against the claimed reduction in wildfire hazard. I also ask the agency to conduct a thorough evaluation of the effects of roads on wildfire ignitions on national forests and other federal lands using he best available science information. Issue 4: I ask that the agency please address effects of the Roadless Rule rescission on the potential spread of invasive species, such as cheatgrass, on National Forest System lands. Numerous scientific publications have linked roads and road construction to increased cover and spread of invasive plants and their potential to increase the frequency and rate of spread of wildfires in wildlands. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in my comment and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 Roadless Rule's protections. Where this proposal rests on factual conclusions that differ from the agency's own prior findings quoted here, I ask that the agency acknowledge the change in position and provide a reasoned explanation for it on the record. Sincerely, Susan Roberts Mammoth Lakes, California

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, Dear The roadless rule must be kept intact to protect and preserved our wildlands. The protection of the roadless rule limits development and environmental degradation in the few areas left to be unspoiled by commercial interests. Sincerely, Elizabeth Lockemer 1080 High Rock Acres Dr. Black Mountain, NC 28711 ealockemer@gmail.com Sincerely, Elizabeth Lockemer

This past weekend, I met a man from England visiting Black Mountain, NC. He was an artist in awe of the thousands of acres of forest. I oppose removal of the “Roadless Rule” because it is what protects the forest that we rely on. Rains in the mountains fuel the reservoirs, rivers, drinking water of the Eastern US. The ecological diversity that we retained after the initial logging is still a wonder and resource. Protecting these lands from commercial exploitation, saves them for all of us. Keep the roadless rule, allow these lands to continue to recover. These are a shared resource we want preserved for the future.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Living near the Routt National Forest when the original roadless rule was passed shaped how I think about these lands. I go to the forest to reset, to forage, and to share with my kids. I used to ride trails near Steamboat. I go out looking for moose, bears, sandhill cranes, owls, you name it. I love to photograph the historic buildings out on the forest. Black Mountain, in the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, is a place I know to hold mushrooms and other resources that deserve protection. This comment opposes the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). The agency's own record undermines its wildfire rationale. The DEIS states: "Building a road into a forest at high risk from uncharacteristic wildfire effects could increase the incidence of human-caused fires. A human-caused wildland fire is nearly five times more likely to occur on essentially roaded lands than on essentially unroaded lands." I have been evacuated twice for fires. Roads would not improve our response; these fires are too big, too quickly. I ask that the agency explain why the proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and fuel treatment in roadless areas, and that it reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21, which the agency's own analysis shows reflects far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. More roads also threaten the wildlife I go out looking for. The DEIS notes that moose are drawn to road corridors for road salt, which increases human-moose interactions and conflict. The DEIS separately quotes the federal grizzly recovery plan on bears: increased contact and conflict that come with open roads in grizzly habitat can ultimately end in grizzly mortality, and shooting, habituation and food reward all increase with the use of even secondary unpaved roads. Beyond conflicts with individual animals, the agency's own Tribal record credits the rule's protection with the recovery of deer and moose populations by preserving old-growth winter shelter. I also know from my own time out there that more roads mean more looting of the historic sites and buildings I photograph. The agency needs to explain how opening the road system addresses any of these documented harms rather than compounding them. The economics do not support rescission either. The agency's own record states: "the total timber volume affected by this rule is less than 0.5 percent of total United States production, and the total oil and gas production from all National Forest System lands is currently about 0.4 percent of the current national production." The Forest Service cannot manage the roads it already has as system roads; I ask that the agency reconcile the proposal with its own Cost Benefit Analysis, which projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and explain how expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog can be justified when the agency's own analysis cannot establish a net benefit. The proposal also misrepresents how restrictive the current rule actually is. The rule as written already states it "generally banned road building subject to limited exceptions including: the preservation of 'reserved or outstanding rights' or discretionary Forest Service construction necessary for public health and safety. 36 C.F.R. Section 294.12(b)(1),(3)." The original purpose of the Forest Service was to protect resources, and the existing exceptions already cover the situations the agency claims the rule prevents. Which specific burdens are not already addressed by those exceptions, and why has the agency not quantified them? Finally, the regulatory flexibility certification does not hold up. "The proposed rule certifies no significant impact on small entities while the DEIS names outfitters, guides and tour operators as affected and its own Cost Benefit Analysis books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year." Spreading an annual expenditure loss across every small firm nationally rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas is not an honest analysis. The agency should withdraw that certification and assess impact on the small entities actually operating in these roadless areas. The agency has to answer why this rescission is needed, when so much work was done to put the original roadless rule in place. Sincerely, R. Morris Colorado

I am an avid outdoor recreationist who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned for with the idea of rescinding the Roadless Rule, which is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and the outdoor recreation economy. The rescission would remove important protections for approximately 45 million acres of backcountry national forests, including more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy, and rescinding the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary. I’m most concerned for the unique areas around Mackey Mountain Grandfather RD, Woods Mountain Grandfather RD, and Black Mountain Pisgah Ranger District

To the U.S. Forest Service: The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is vital to the conservation of the biodiversity of the WNC area. We use and advocate for our nation’s public lands, and rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. We frequently hike the Pisgah forest near our home in Black Mountain. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to us because these pristine mountains are the jewel of the community, hosting wildlife and all nature has intended to cultivate here. We depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water as well. The other main concern we have is that 84% to 90% of all forest fires are ignited by humans. Destroying this natural treasure by building roads will only exacerbate the fire danger. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, John and Caroline Grebe

I'm writing as someone who loves the Blue Ridge Mountains with my whole heart. Black Mountain our home, and Pisgah National Forest is where we go to remember who we are. We have probably thousands of pictures from the same overlooks, my kids growing taller in every one. After Hurricane Helene, I watched the communities of western North Carolina show all of us what loving a place really requires: interdependence, resilience, and a fierce kind of hope. These mountains are still healing. The last thing they need is new roads and logging cut into the wild, quiet corners that hold the soil, clean the water, and shelter the creatures that were here long before us. The Roadless Rule protects the places in Pisgah that don't belong to any one of us. They belong to all of us, and to the generations who'll come after. Please keep it in place. Some places are worth leaving just as they are. — Sara Sterley, Black Mountain, NC

To the U.S. Forest Service: I strongly oppose any changes to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule that would weaken the protections it affords to forests on lands that are owned by the American people. My home shares the South Toe River watershed with the Bear Wallow and Balsam Cone roadless areas in the Pisgah Ranger District in Yancey County, NC. In 27 years of hiking and camping, I have come to know these areas like beloved old friends. The 14,704 acres of land protected by these two roadless parcels were crucial to protecting our valley from the worst effects of Hurricane Helene. These areas undisturbed forest withstood over 30 inches of rain in 48 hours with many fewer landslides than elsewhere in the county. In the South Toe valley, no one died in a debris flow. Sadly, on the other side of the Black Mountain Range, in the Cane River valley, which is not protected by the Roadless Rule, at least three people died in debris flows. On hikes since Helene, I have observed dozens of instances where landslides began where logging roads cut into the natural slopes of the mountainsides. As a psychotherapist, I provide support to a client who lost her home to a debris flow in the Cane River Valley. Losing her home has exacted a major toll on her mental health, from which she still has not fully recovered two years later. Roadless areas protect not only native plants, animals, and other organisms, they also protect human life and wellbeing. While Yancey County suffered Helene's worst flooding, neighboring forests in Mitchell County suffered massive blow-downs. As discussed above, these disturbed areas are incredibly vulnerable to infiltration by exotic invasive plants. If the biodiversity of USFS forests in Mitchell County ends up being compromised long-term by invasive exotic plants, it is more important than ever to protect adjacent roadless areas, including Slide Hollow, Wilson Creek, Lost Cove, Harper Creek, Linville Gorge Addition, Dobson Knob, Woods Mountain, Mackey Mountain, Jarrett Creek, and Craggy Mountain. The grandchildren and great grandchildren of Yancey, Mitchell, Avery, McDowell and Buncombe residents, of the United States -- and of the world -- deserve to know what a healthy, biologically intact Southern Appalachian Forest looks, smells, tastes, sounds, and feels like. Hurricane Helene's flooding washed hellbender salamanders, lampreys, and tiny non-game native fish out of the river and onto our road. I'd never seen these elusive creatures up close before. Ten days after the storm, I witnessed huge hellbender climbing over boulders, possibly on an epic journey back to its home territory upstream. The purity of South Toe River water is a direct result of the protections to water quality provided by the Balsam Cone and Bear Wallow roadless areas. These roadless areas buffer the South Toe River's waters from sediment and other water pollutants, which allows the South Toe River to support rare and endangered salamanders, mussels, and fish that occur in only a select few other watersheds in North Carolina. I am a passionate naturalist, deeply concerned about the threat to native botanical biodiversity caused by exotic invasive plant species. I have observed with dread as publicly-owned forests in Western NC are increasingly choked with Asiatic Bittersweet, Kudzu, Japanese Stilt Grass, Japanese Barberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and other invasive exotic plants. Where these plants flourish, they create a monoculture of themselves, threatening forest plant communities unique to the Southern Appalachians, as well as all the rare and endangered animals, birds, spiders, insects, herps, fungi and other organisms that have adapted to live within or migrate through them. Fortunately, the relatively intact forests within the roadless areas at Bear Wallow and Balsam Cone appear to be fending off the worst invasive plant infestations. As the South Toe River Road has reopened, I have been dismayed to see new areas where invasive plants have begun to propagate, accelerated by the accidental introduction of seeds or plant material during road repair after Helene, and by extra sunlight where the South Toe River Road creates a break in the canopy. Right between Bear Wallow and Balsam Cone roadless areas, the South Toe River Road provides a perfect illustration of why roadless areas are imperative to preserve the remaining rich biodiversity of the Pisgah Ranger District. These are the stories I know, but I know that all over the US, every roadless areas is providing equally crucial ecological services, protecting equally wild ecosystems, and bringing joy, health, and well-being to citizens who live near or visit them. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to maintain full protections for all currently-designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for accepting my comment. Sincerely, Jessica Ruegg

I am writing to express my strong opposition to any effort to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation’s public lands I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit the Experimental Forest trails near my home in Black Mountain. Protecting these in fragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me as hiking is a hobby of mine. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to maintain full protection for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, Pat Raso

I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit Pisgah National Forest near my home in Black Mountain North Carolina. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I enjoy the hiking and observing wildlife habitat. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.

To the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service: I am writing you to express my emphatic opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. These areas are critical for the economic and ecological health of our nation. I am thinking of the future generations who deserve a world worth living in when I plead with you to do everything in your power to preserve our natural resources. Verified research over the last two decades demonstrates that our nation’s roadless areas are critical for wildfire safety, clean water protection and the ability to withstand excessive heat and storm weather patterns. We are witness to the devastating impacts of deforestation on lands across Europe and are seeing them here in the United States in densely developed areas of our nation. Let us not repeat these mistakes. Thoughtful care and vital generational wisdom have informed the Roadless Rule regulations. Removal of the current protections for our Roadless area lands could subject them to potential deforestation and impact our nation’s economic and ecological health negatively for generations to come. Our future generations will inherit vastly devastated lands if we allow the last remaining vestiges of uninterrupted lands to be fragmented. The potential health and loss of wealth costs of deforested lands far outweigh the proposed economic gains of removing current regulations. Let’s face it, the capitalistic greed that drives are nation comes at a terrible price for our natural resources. We need to shift to renewable alternatives and keep our natural resources safe. In my region of the country, the economic and ecosystem value of North Carolina’s 32 Roadless areas to communities throughout our state is priceless. People from across the country come to North Carolina to visit our Roadless areas throughout the year; their visits to our state are vital to our local economies, especially in Western North Carolina where our area is still recovering from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in September of 2024. Disrupting these well-visited natural areas would wreak havoc on our local economies. The Craggy Mountain area of the Pisgah Forest is near my home in Black Mountain, NC. Protecting the unfragmented roadless landscapes of North Carolina is deeply personal to me. I have been hiking and visiting these areas of our Blue Ridge Mountains for over 59 years. These mountains soothe my heart and nourish my soul. These are some of the wildest places we have left, and the public overwhelmingly supports their protection. The remaining pristine lands and habitats across our nation are economic and ecological lifelines that are vital to our very survival. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this public comment.

To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation's public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit Grandfather Mountain near my home in Black Mountain. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I'm closely involved with nature in my art and my work. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, Linda Metzner Black Mountain NC

We are Granite Backcountry Alliance, a nonprofit established in 2016 and based in North Conway, New Hampshire. We promote backcountry skiing through glade development, volunteer stewardship, and Ski Kind, which encourages responsible recreation and respect for others and the land. In 2017, we partnered with the U.S. Forest Service to establish approved backcountry glading at Maple Villa in Intervale and Baldface Mountain in Chatham, New Hampshire, creating a new approved use in the White Mountain National Forest. We also maintain four classic ski trails cut by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s: the John Sherburne and Gulf of Slides ski trails in Pinkham Notch, and the Doublehead and Black Mountain ski trails in Jackson. These commitments connect generations of skiers through hands-on care of public lands. Our volunteers maintain routes, but the surrounding forest provides the setting that makes the experience worth returning to. If subsequent management decisions diminish that setting, they could reduce the recreational and community value our work sustains, even where trails remain open. Our network of tens of thousands of supporters, members, and volunteers also create economic stimuli to the communities surrounding these natural areas by supporting various local businesses in the regions in which we work. We urge USDA and the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Our experience shows how forest stewardship and thoughtfully managed recreation can work together. Keeping roadless protections would help preserve the broader landscape supporting that relationship. Please give weight to the volunteer investment, recreation heritage, and local economic activity these forests already sustain when considering whether to remove those protections.

My name is Sarah Joy Maule, and I live in Idyllwild, California, a small mountain community surrounded by the San Bernardino National Forest. The surrounding public lands aren't simply beautiful scenery for those of us who live here—they are fundamental to our community's identity, quality of life, and local economy. People travel from across California, the country, and around the world to experience the San Jacinto Mountains. They come to hike, camp, climb, mountain bike, watch wildlife, and experience landscapes that remain relatively wild and undeveloped. The Pacific Crest Trail passes through the roadless areas surrounding our community, bringing hikers who regularly come into Idyllwild to resupply, eat a hot meal, stay overnight, replace equipment, and rest before continuing their journey. Those visitors spend money at our restaurants, inns and Airbnbs, markets, coffee shops, and other locally owned services and establishments. Tourism and outdoor recreation help sustain jobs and small businesses throughout our community. That means decisions about nearby roadless areas don't affect some distant piece of federal land—they affect the landscape that makes Idyllwild a destination and helps sustain the community where my family and I live. Protecting the wild character of these mountains is also an investment in the long-term economic health of communities like ours. My family experiences that connection personally. We regularly hike in these mountains, including at Humber Park and Black Mountain. We camp at Idyllwild Regional Park and Marion Mountain and fish at Lake Fulmor and Lake Hemet. Our community is also home to the world-class Idyllwild Arts Academy, where the surrounding natural landscape is part of what makes this such a unique place to live, learn, and create. I also support maintaining the Roadless Rule because these landscapes provide benefits that extend far beyond recreation. Relatively intact forests and watersheds provide wildlife habitat, help protect water quality, and preserve connected landscapes in a region where wildfire, drought, and development are ongoing concerns. For all of these reasons, I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and strongly support the No Action Alternative. I urge the U.S. Forest Service to maintain the current protections for our nation's inventoried roadless areas. For communities like Idyllwild, protecting these lands isn't an abstract conservation issue. These forests are part of our home, our economy, our water, our way of life, and the inheritance we leave to future generations.

I want to thank you in advance for keeping the Roadless Rule intact……we NEED all the wilderness we can get right now…..and…..this is public land….Thank You. Adrienne Taylor Black Mountain NC

As a US citizen and resident of NC, I am against this change in the rules that were established in 2001. Places like the Linville Gorge, Black Mountain and portions of Mills River and the Pisgah forest which my family and I use and take advantage of because of it's natural and untouched beauty would be negatively affected by this change in administrative policy. Doing this flies in the face of over 100 years of conservation of our national lands, started by Teddy Roosevelt and championed by the likes of JFK, Obama and Reagan.

The N.C. High Peaks Trail Association, a 501(c)3 with 150 members, calls on the Forest Service to reject the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Based in Yancey County, N.C., our group leads hikes, promotes conservation and has donated thousands of hours to maintaining and improving hiking trails on the Black Mountains. This chain includes Mt. Mitchell and a dozen other peaks topping 6,000 feet, making it one of the most unique natural areas in the entire Eastern U.S. The Black Mountain Crest Trail is one of the most scenic and spectacular hikes in the East, taking visitors on a rugged trip through a unique, high-altitude spruce/fir forest akin to those found 1,000 miles to the north in Canada. The repeal would allow logging on the entire eastern flank of the Blacks, an area where extensive roads already exist behind locked USFS gates. Loggers could begin cutting the mature Appalachian hardwood and spruce/fir forests on the mountain’s slopes almost immediately, irreparably damaging what are now gorgeous views and peaceful hikes through deep, shaded woods. The impact on wildlife would be drastic, as this area is largely undeveloped and thus a refuge for animals. Water quality would be adversely impacted as the many small streams and sizable creeks running east off the Black’s escarpment feed into the South Toe River. The local economy would be severely hurt, as dozens of small businesses offering house rental options have opened in recent years, taking advantage of the boom in such tourism. Burnsville’s growing downtown, just beginning to thrive with shops, a refurbished historic hotel and new restaurants, would take a tremendous hit, as the Blacks and Mt. Mitchell are the county’s main tourism attraction. Hikers are not going to come to an area to hike through miles of logged-over wilderness. Word will spread quickly through that community and visitation will drop. Motorcyclists will choose other areas of the Blue Ridge Parkway for their scenic rides when the overlooks in Yancey look down on a patchwork of large-scale logging. The Blacks were devastated 100 years ago when industrial-scale logging stripped the mountains bare. The slopes took decades to re-grow and recover. The USFS must uphold its tradition of stewardship of this land by NOT repealing the Roadless Rule and reverting to large-scale logging. That would fly in the face of the agency’s own decades of scientific research on what it takes to support healthy forests. Your agency’s mandate is to protect the resource for the greatest public good. The interests of the recreational community are far too big and important to ignore. Hikers, fishermen, hunters and free-spending tourists leave prosperous businesses in their wake. Large-scale logging enriches a tiny number of individuals and leaves little but forlorn landscapes and damaged land that attracts nobody.

The N.C. High Peaks Trail Association, a 501(c)3 with 150 members, calls on the Forest Service to reject the repeal of the Roadless Rule. Based in Yancey County, N.C., our group leads hikes, promotes conservation and has donated thousands of hours to maintaining and improving hiking trails on the Black Mountains. This chain includes Mt. Mitchell and a dozen other peaks topping 6,000 feet, making it one of the most unique natural areas in the entire Eastern U.S. The Black Mountain Crest Trail is one of the most scenic and spectacular hikes in the East, taking visitors on a rugged trip through a unique, high-altitude spruce/fir forest akin to those found 1,000 miles to the north in Canada. The repeal would allow logging on the entire eastern flank of the Blacks, an area where extensive roads already exist behind locked USFS gates. Loggers could begin cutting the mature Appalachian hardwood and spruce/fir forests on the mountains slopes almost immediately, irreparably damaging what are now gorgeous views and peaceful hikes through deep, shaded woods. The impact on wildlife would be drastic, as this area is largely undeveloped and thus a refuge for animals. Water quality would be adversely impacted as the many small streams and sizable creeks running east off the Blacks escarpment feed into the South Toe River. The local economy would be severely hurt, as dozens of small businesses offering house rental options have opened in recent years, taking advantage of the boom in such tourism. Burnsvilles growing downtown, just beginning to thrive with shops, a refurbished historic hotel and new restaurants, would take a tremendous hit, as the Blacks and Mt. Mitchell are the countys main tourism attraction. Hikers are not going to come to an area to hike through miles of logged-over wilderness. Word will spread quickly through that community and visitation will drop. Motorcyclists will choose other areas of the Blue Ridge Parkway for their scenic rides when the overlooks in Yancey look down on a patchwork of large-scale logging. The Blacks were devastated 100 years ago when industrial-scale logging stripped the mountains bare. The slopes took decades to re-grow and recover. The USFS must uphold its tradition of stewardship of this land by NOT repealing the Roadless Rule and reverting to large-scale logging. That would fly in the face of the agencys own decades of scientific research on what it takes to support healthy forests. Your agencys mandate is to protect the resource for the greatest public good. The interests of the recreational community are far too big and important to ignore. Hikers, fishermen, hunters and free-spending tourists leave prosperous businesses in their wake. Large-scale logging enriches a tiny number of individuals and leaves little but forlorn landscapes and damaged land that attracts nobody. The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy. National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk. Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.

I'm a resident of Asheville, North Carolina, and my children and I have been enjoying the gorgeous forests of WNC - including Pisgah and Nantahala for years, and I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. I urge the Forest Service to keep the rule in place and adopt the no-action alternative. Drinking water and public health: Roadless areas in the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests protect mountain headwaters that supply drinking water to more than 1.5 million North Carolinians. Road building on steep Appalachian slopes causes erosion and sediment pollution, which raise water treatment costs and threaten water quality. As a Certified Community Health Worker, I see clean water as a basic public health issue, not something to trade for easier timber access. Helene showed us what's at stake: After Hurricane Helene, our region knows firsthand how fragile these steep watersheds are. Intact forest holds soil and slows runoff. New roads in these areas would increase landslide and flood risk for downstream communities that are still rebuilding. The wildfire justification doesn't hold up: Roads are linked to increased human-caused wildfire ignitions. The existing rule already allows exceptions for fuel reduction where needed. Removing protections from 44.7 million acres nationwide is not a targeted wildfire strategy. The Forest Service's own local staff say the change isn't needed here: The National Forests in North Carolina have stated that rescission would likely have minimal impact on current management because of steep terrain and remote locations. If the rule isn't blocking needed work in WNC, there's no justification for removing a permanent safeguard. These places are irreplaceable: Linville Gorge, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock, Black Mountain Crest, South Mills River, and the 32 roadless areas in Pisgah and Nantahala support hunting, fishing, recreation, and a tourism economy WNC depends on, plus habitat for species like the eastern hellbender. The public has already spoken. The 2025 scoping period drew more than 220,000 comments, about 99% opposed. The short comment period and lack of public hearings in affected regions like WNC are inadequate for a decision of this scale. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Mon Bethelwood Tucker, CCHW Asheville, NC

I live in Western North Carolina. I spend many weekends in Pisgah National Forest. I love to ride my bike and hike there. It’s an amazing place and many people come to the forest to hunt and fish and just escape the pressure of modern life. Roadless areas have helped keep some areas truly wild and allowed many of our struggling animals and plants a place to thrive and remain un-threatened. I work in a small shop in Black Mountain and many of our visitors come here to see the beautiful blue ridge mountains and not a clear cut field where the forest used to be. There is a time and a place for logging in these forests and some roads do help get to places where wildfire prevention is needed.Removing these rules is another act of profit over people and another way to turn all of Americas resources into money for the wealthy and corporations. The heart of this effort is to line the pockets of timber companies. We make our biggest supplier of paper goods our adversary and now we have to destroy our beautiful ancient forests? Disgusting and despicable. We are poisoning this planet at an accelerating rate and soon there will be be no untouched and no pristine places left for our descendants.