Read the comments.

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 the area of Pisgah & Nantahala national forest and I use the blue ridge parkway weekly for hiking and enjoying the beauty of our mountains near my home in WNC. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I have lived here my whole life and after experiencing hurricane Helene I believe the people of WNC and surrounding areas have already experienced enough damage and destruction. 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. Please please do not destroy our forest and national park all for the sake of money and what the rich man wants. Listen to people who live near these areas and actually will have to experience the loss and damage this will all cause. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Sincerely, Hannah Petersen WNC Native & Local Nature Lover

I am an Environmental Engineer in the state of Georgia, currently employed in a regulatory field. The roadless areas closest to me are in the Chattahoochee National Forest, the Nantahala National Forest, and the Great Smoky Mountains. I spend a considerable amount of time recreating in these areas on my weekends and off hours. I have also taken trips across the country and recreated in roadless areas in Washington and California. I have experienced firsthand the beauty and value of these areas, and wish to highlight the importance in conserving them. I am writing this comment to oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. According to the USDA Forest Service's own assessment, rescinding the roadless rule will NOT meaningfully decrease wildfire risk - it is actually more likely to INCREASE wildfire risk. Page 86 of the DEIS report states: "the incidence of human-caused fires generally increases with proximity to roads." Additionally, there is already an exception in the existing Rule for cutting and removing small timber as a means of reducing wildfire risk. Page 102 of the DEIS states that "timber projects are the primary motivation and funding source for new roads", NOT reducing wildfire risk. However, the Forest Service already lacks the budget to maintain its existing roads and infrastructure, with a current deferred maintenance backlog of $7 billion. The DEIS states, on page 45: "revenue generated by timber sales or other...activities would be used for some road-related system management but would not be sufficient to cover the costs of constructing and maintaining all new roads related to a project." So where is the money needed to build these proposed new roads, at an estimated cost of $2 million per mile (as stated in page 42 of the DEIS), coming from? Rescinding the Roadless Rule will have negative impacts on soil, water, and air quality. Increased timber harvests will increase soil erosion, compaction, and landslide probability. Page 120 of the DEIS states that there are 7,000 municipal water intakes within watersheds in designated roadless areas, supplying water to nearly 5 million people just within the Pacific Southwest. Water quality will be degraded by the addition of new roads, as roading and timber harvest degrade water quality by increasing sediment and nutrient runoff into streams, creating warmer and hypoxic conditions (page 117, DEIS). Removing tree canopies will alter the timing of spring snowmelt and runoff. Increases in timber harvest will also result in increased emissions from trucks and other equipment (page 128, DEIS). Page 160 of the report states that roadless areas "overlap the range of more than 300 threatened, endangered, and proposed species, 79 final or proposed critical habitats managed by the USFWS, and 19 critical habitats...listed under the ESA". The DEIS projects negative impacts that include habitat loss and degradation, introduction and spread of non-native and invasive species, increased human-wildlife conflict, and detrimental impacts to fish and game species. (Pages 142, 151, 152) Though the current administration is waging a war against the Endangered Species Act, the USFS IS CURRENTLY STILL REQUIRED to comply with the ESA. It is unclear how the USFS plans to do so when its own report states that rescinding the Roadless Rule will directly lead to noncompliance with the ESA. Circling back to the financial questions posed in the second paragraph, it is known that recreation and tourism are more profitable than roadless timber. In 2024, visitors to roadless areas spend $8.5 billion total in local communities (DEIS page 212). Meanwhile, timber harvest value in 2024 across ALL national forest land was just $151 million (DEIS page 220). Roadless timber is only expected to generate $2.2-$11.4 million dollars annually (DEIS page 220). Even a 1% loss in visitation to roadless areas due to rescission of this rule could lead to a projected loss of $9 million annually. So again I ask, who stands to profit from these timber harvests? Seemingly not the USFS, since we have covered that profits from timber harvests will not be enough to cover the costs of building the roads required for such projects, and likely not the local economies poised to lose millions tourism dollars either. If there is no clear benefit, financial or otherwise, to increased timber harvests, then why is it being proposed? Who stands to benefit? In the current era of constant threats to our natural environment and the health and financial wellbeing of the American people, we must place the highest importance on protecting and conserving what natural resources we have left. Due to the financial concerns and projected negative impacts on wildfire risk, soil quality, water quality, air quality, biodiversity, recreation, and tourism as outlined above, I must oppose the recission of the Roadless Rule, and urge all others to do the same.

I am in opposition to the removal of the Roadless Rule. I am a resident of North Carolina and I cherish our National Forest lands. I have backpacked in the Nantahala National Forest and hiked in the Cherokee and Uwharrie National Forests. I plan to continue doing so. I live in Charlotte and being able to drive 1-3 hours to natural lands is part of what makes me love North Carolina. The beauty and recreational value of these lands is in part due to the minimization of habitat fragmentation that the Roadless Rule allows. I do not want to see our public lands diminished in value by additional roads and timber harvesting. My boyfriend is an angler and fish thrive in roadless areas. While he is not always fishing in roadless areas, fish in streams outside of roadless areas are still impacted positively from their connection to streams in roadless spots. Again, we need to preserve their value. When I researched the roadless rule I found that it was originally implemented for economic reasons. The backlog of road maintenance in national forests was so large that it did not make sense to build more roads. That reason is still valid today. The current backlog of forest service roads is 6.9 billion dollars. As a taxpayer, it does not make sense to me to build more roads when the backlog of maintenance for existing forest service roads is so large. Keep the Roadless Rule in place.

To the USDA and the US Forest Service, : We bought a lot in 2001 in Long Branch Estates off Needmore Road in Swain County. The first day we spent on our property we thought we heard road noise and were so disappointed that there was a road we weren't aware of that was so close to hear the tires driven over rough asphalt. The disappointment also stemmed from our desire to get back to nature after living decades in suburbs of large cities. It only took a couple minutes for us to realize what we were actually hearing, when a gust of wind followed the sound up to the ridge we were standing on. We realized this was a new sound that can't be detected in the suburbs where actual vehicle traffic noise drowns out the natural sound of wind blowing through trees. For 25 years we have felt blessed to live on land that allows us to feel a connection to this amazing forest. We travel extensively throughout our country and have seen and enjoyed so many wonderful natural p[aces. Every time we share pictures of this area, and especially when we return home, my wife and I comment on how blessed we are that this part of the Nantahala National Forest is where we live. I just realized the irony of 2001 also being when the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was created. To the USDA and Forest Service, I hope you can see the greater value of continuing protection of these tracts. There is plenty of land that can be developed in areas where roads are already built. I strongly urge you to not change this rule.

Brooke L. Rollins and Tom Schultz, Every year I spend thousands of dollars on tourism and over a month of my time in the Appalachian woods between WV and GA, from rafting and camping to hiking and escaping to the middle of nowhere, and this rescission directly threatens those places. Many rural areas depend on tourism economies in a way that timber won't likely replace with rescission, per Forest Service analysis. Destroying these lands will hurt the communities & economies that depend on beautiful healthy forests and waterways. We go rafting and hiking every year, and I spend two weeks in Pisgah alone. Week of Rivers is a wonderful way to experience the forests and rivers around Nantahala. And the sunset driving along that highway is simply magical With this rescission, I risk losing places that I've loved and cared for, for decades. Rescission threatens local tourism like rafting and hiking, and it threatens the lands and wildlife I enjoy teaching my partner's son about. Perhaps worse, is that he loses all of this and he's only 8 years old and has no idea what his future will be missing if our forests are turned into roads and timber lands. He may never be able to experience the awesome nature that has been loved my ancestors going back 7 generations. That's a tragedy. Regarding the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina: The 2001 Roadless Rule protects the conditions that make paddling in the Nantahala National Forest, viable. Rescinding the rule removes the only administrative safeguard for the solitude, water quality, wildlife habitat, and backcountry character that define this area's paddling value. Road construction in Nantahala introduces engine noise, dust, and ground disturbance that destroy the solitude and natural soundscape essential to paddling. Stream crossings cause sedimentation that degrades water quality. New motorized access displaces the backcountry character that defines this area. Each of these impacts directly diminishes the paddling experience. NEPA mandates that the agency analyze the economic consequences of the proposed action. paddling in the Nantahala National Forest generates measurable economic activity — visitor spending, guide revenue, outfitter income, local business revenue — that road construction degrades. The DEIS must quantify this cost. Failure to do so violates NEPA's requirement to consider economic impacts. I hope you'll strongly consider not just the tourism impacts, but also the quality of life impacts to water systems and downstream communities that are dependent on those systems. Rescinding this is not the best path for this country. Maintaining beautiful, healthy forests is good for all of us. All the best, Someone who wants our children to have MORE opportunities to experience the world than we did, not less

In reference to: 36 CFR Part 294 RIN 0596-AD66 I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Kelly Skonier. I was born and raised in North Carolina. This is where I still live, work and pay taxes. From a young age, I learned to love our natural forests and waterways, and to ‘leave no trace’ when hiking, camping, or otherwise exploring. I have family all across NC, from the mountains, to the piedmont and the coast, and across our great nation, from New England down to Florida, west to the suburbs of Seattle, and all in between. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects about 172,000 acres of national forest land in North Carolina, including areas in Pisgah National Forest, Nantahala National Forest, and the Croatan National Forest. The many hiking trails, beautiful waterfalls and scenic swampland that are parts of these lands are not only enjoyed by me, they also draw tourists to visit, bringing outside dollars into some more rural communities. They are also, obviously, natural habitats for many plants, animals and other living things. I believe these lands and those all across the country should remain protected under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I may not have gotten to visit them yet, but I believe they should be protected for when I can and for future generations. I understand the argument for roads to be able to prevent or fight wildfires. But I do not believe that any good-faith effort was put forth in proposing an acceptable change. As a layperson, without specialized advanced education in these areas, I do know that there are techniques using prescribed burns and logging with draft animals that are less detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole, while also providing some needed safeguards. According to pew.org “the findings from the USDA’s own draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) indicate that repealing the rule is likely to cause economic and environmental harm to undeveloped backcountry forests, wildlife, water resources, and communities, while delivering little or no wildfire risk reduction and potentially increasing federal road maintenance costs.” I believe that discussions with foresters, watershed specialists, and those who have studied the animals, insects and birds that live on these lands, to be able to preserve the lands as naturally as possible, is imperative before even considering any possibility of change. Moving forward with fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule when your own research points to increased costs and damages without much, if any, risk reduction seems obtuse or worse, spiteful. I believe fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. I oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I support the No Action alternative, Alternative 1. Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Kelly Skonier

Subject: Public Comment Opposing Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001) Dear U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, I am writing to formally submit my strong opposition to the proposed full rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has successfully protected roughly 44 to 45 million acres of America’s wildest national forest lands. Removing these national safeguards and handing discretionary control over to individual forest plans threatens critical ecosystems, water supplies, and climate resilience. My concerns are grounded in the following points: • Clean Water Protection: National forests are a primary source of municipal drinking water for over 60 million Americans across 3,400 communities. Road construction and commercial logging in roadless headwaters increase sediment runoff and degrade water quality. • Wildfire and Forest Health Reality: Claims that rescinding the rule is necessary for wildfire prevention are flawed. The 2001 Roadless Rule already permits localized fuel-reduction treatments, thinning near communities, and full fire-suppression tools (including heavy machinery and aircraft). Research shows that human-caused fire risks increase significantly with the expansion of forest roads. • Biodiversity and Habitat Connectivity: Roadless areas provide unfragmented sanctuary, breeding grounds, and migration corridors for imperiled and native wildlife. Fragmenting these last remaining wild tracts accelerates biodiversity loss. • Climate and Carbon Storage: Mature and old-growth forests within roadless regions act as vital carbon sinks, naturally absorbing greenhouse gases to help mitigate climate change. As someone who values hiking, camping, and clean local water in the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina, I urge the Department of Agriculture to select Alternative 1 (No Action) and preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in its entirety. Sincerely, John Pontier Bradenton, FL

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Growing up in Greenville, SC, Pisgah National Forest was one of the closest and most beautiful places my family could go to hike and camp. We spent so much time wandering through the forests, having picnics, and swimming in the creeks there that it developed my love of western North Carolina and truly all national forests and parks in the Carolinas. As an adult I have hiked southern portions of the Appalachian Trail, tubed down Deep Creek, and gone white water rafting in the Nantahala National Forest. These are not abstract landscapes to me, and I am writing to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in Docket FS-2025-0001. The roadless areas of the Nantahala and Pisgah are among the most biodiverse temperate forests in North America, protecting the last wild headwaters of rivers flowing to both the Atlantic and the Gulf. Verified species in these forests include black bear, brook trout, cerulean warbler, hellbender, northern long-eared bat, and more than 30 endemic salamander species. I have watched wildlife run out of places to live safely as development expands outside these boundaries. Deer are constantly hit and killed on roads. Bear encounters in western North Carolina are becoming more and more common. The agency's own record acknowledges what road-building does to bears with increased contact and conflict ultimately ending in bear mortality and habituation. I ask that the agency address on the record how rescission would affect bear and deer populations in the Nantahala and Pisgah, where road-driven conflict and habitat fragmentation are already documented pressures. Bird habitats are disappearing alongside everything else, and the agency's own science explains why roads are the mechanism. The DEIS cites findings that bird richness declines with road presence in forested habitat, and that road-noise experiments in a roadless area cut bird abundance by over a quarter, with 31 percent of species avoiding the noise entirely. The forests I grew up loving support the cerulean warbler and a full community of species that depend on unroaded interiors. The agency must explain what it makes of its own cited research before moving forward. South Mills River, 8,588 acres in Pisgah, holds the kind of interconnected creek systems where brook trout persist. Building roads and harvesting timber there would damage water clarity and native trout habitat in ways that cannot be undone on any human timescale. Across the Southern region, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas, and the agency's own analysis acknowledges that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. The Deep Creek section of the Nantahala is enjoyed yearly by locals and visitors alike, and its pristine waters support both wildlife and local businesses. The agency should respond to these water supply risks with specificity, not generality. The Linville Gorge Addition, 2,809 acres in Pisgah, presents a concern that goes beyond the ordinary. Western North Carolina is still recovering from Hurricane Helene. Removing the logging and road construction ban on the steep, rugged slopes around the Gorge could significantly heighten the severity and frequency of landslides in the region, with long-term consequences for the Gorge itself, its panoramic views, and its recreational areas. The Wesser Bald roadless area, though smaller in acreage, houses the Appalachian Trail. That corridor should not be desecrated. I expect the agency to address the landslide and slope-stability risks specific to these areas under current post-storm conditions. The proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire management grounds, but the agency's own record 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." The agency must reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. Finally, the proposal solicits "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" but the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. My connection to these forests, built across a lifetime and expressed in the choices I continue to make about where to hike, tube, raft, and simply be, is exactly the kind of reliance interest an agency reversing a two-decade-old rule is required to assess. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before any final action is taken. Sincerely, Naomi Morgan Columbia, SC Hopeful Western NC Retiree

Do not destroy our Nantahala National Forest. Keep the roadless area rule in place.

I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Department to adopt the No Action alternative. I live in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and I hike/camp/fish in Pisgah or Nantahala National Forest every year to reconnect with nature and disconnect from all the tech we use on a daily basis. The wildfire rationale does not justify full rescission. The 2001 rule already allows small-diameter timber cutting to reduce fire risk, and road construction where needed to address imminent threats. The DEIS should show why these existing exceptions are insufficient before removing protections nationwide. New roads also bring more human-caused ignitions. Southern Appalachian watersheds face specific risks. Hurricane Helene showed western North Carolina how steep slopes, disturbed soils, and road cuts contribute to landslides and stream sedimentation. Roadless headwaters protect drinking water for downstream communities. The DEIS should analyze cumulative road-building impacts on steep Southern Appalachian terrain specifically, not just Western forests. The Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it has. Adding road miles to an existing maintenance backlog increases erosion and long-term cost to taxpayers. The process is inadequate. The original rule followed hundreds of public hearings and over a million comments. A roughly 45-day comment period with no public meetings is not proportionate to a decision affecting tens of millions of acres. Please retain the 2001 Roadless Rule in full and permanent.

The backcountry wilderness I hike is extremely important to me. Hiking through places untouched by roads, surrounded by wild forests, is where I feel most connected to the world around me and at peace. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is what makes this possible, and its rescission under Docket FS-2025-0001 would cause irreversible damage. I oppose this proposal fully. Tusquitee Bald in the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina, is one place I know from my own experience. I have many wonderful memories hiking there with my family. The old-growth forests, undisturbed watersheds, and the diverse community of endemic salamanders I’ve encountered there are part of what makes it special. The Southern Appalachians are among the most biodiverse temperate forests in North America, and the Nantahala holds 14 roadless areas totaling 52,304 acres. These roadless areas protect the last wild headwaters that flow to both the Atlantic and the Gulf, along with salamander species found nowhere else on Earth. The roadless rule must remain to preserve these forests, wildlife, and watersheds. The Lance Creek roadless area in the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia is home to Springer Mountain, the southern terminus of the Appalachian Trail. I’ve had the opportunity to hike that section of the A.T., and I hope someday to complete the entire trail. The Chattahoochee holds 23 inventoried roadless areas totaling 63,351 acres, and it is part of the wildest land in the southeastern United States. It is home to black bears, brook trout, hellbender, cerulean warbler, and the northern long-eared bat. Without the roadless rule, Lance Creek and the other roadless areas along the trail become vulnerable to compromised scenic views, fragmented habitats, and degraded water quality. I hope that when I do complete the trail, I will be hiking through wilderness and alongside wildlife that the rule has continued to protect. I fully oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule protects irreplaceable land home to old growth forests, diverse wildlife, and watersheds. This rule protects the undisturbed wilderness where I hike, find connection, and peace. It protects the places that we all cherish. These public lands belong to the people. Please listen to our comments.

I have a Bachelor of Science in Forest Resources from the University of Georgia, I am a former ATCS with the Federal Aviation Administration, and I have taught mathematics in public high schools from the coast of South Carolina to America’s last frontier in Alaska, and then back to the Appalachian Mountains. I have lived adjacent to the Francis Marion National Forest, the Chugach National Forest, and the Nantahala National Forest. I have been hiking, backpacking, and camping in these forests for 54 years. I am 100% against overturning or modifying the Roadless Rule, a much needed protection for our public lands. I feel this entire process is just another first step toward eventually selling off public lands or services to the highest bidder for development or corporate profit, and it will devastate the majesty of our forests. There is absolutely no practical reason to overturn the Roadless Rule in our beautiful national forest, and those that are pushing this change are either blinded by dollar signs and greed, or just extremely short-sighted and apathetic. Please serve the people of our great nation and act in the public’s best interest.

I beg you to NOT rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and instead, keep it intact so that by law our nation’s remaining beautiful wild areas will continue to be protected. I live in the lovely state of North Carolina. Here, where the Appalachian Mountains cover the western part of our state, beautiful oforests comprise much of the land. Many acres of these lands had to recover from early 20th century timber-cutting and have been able to recover at least in part to such conservation rules and laws. There are millions of people such as myself who benefit from these gorgeous new growth forests and the old growth forests that were, thankfully, lovingly protected in the nick of time. Areas such as the Pisgah National Forest and the Nantahala National Forest provide ample opportunities for all types of outdoor recreation and are very worthwhile examples of conservation efforts DONE RIGHT. There are entire small towns in western NC whose economies depend almost entirely on people coming from near and far to enjoy the untouched forest lands nearby. There, communities are thriving on tourists who come to the areas to partake in the various outdoor recreation. They come to get away from bustling cities with their noise, overpopulation, traffic, and polluted air. They come to hike the trails of pristine, unspoiled woods, to raft down the rapids of swift-moving rivers, to tent camp under the stars, to canoe along quiet waterways, and to feel “one with nature”. If the mountain lands in these national forests were to go unprotected from roads, mining and timber harvesting, these areas would be open to actions that would seriously curtail their value to the citizens of this state and the many tourists who travel here precisely for the entertaining opportunities provided there. I’m sure the reasons I’ve outlined here apply in the same way to all of the other national forest lands throughout the U.S. Another place where any possible change resulting from the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule would be absolutely devastating is in the state of AK, this nation’s incredible “last frontier” of wilderness perfection. The Chugach land is an incredible pristine wilderness! Any CHANCE of potential damage to it would be not only horribly heartbreaking but a devastating travesty against nature. It could endanger needed water watersheds to industrial development, pose potential harm to grizzly and moose habitats there and open literally millions of acres of pristine land to road-building ….and to what purpose? Nothing that is worth those extreme costs, The potential of damage to the Tongass rainforest of AK is especially frightening to even consider, what with the danger of clearcutting oldgrowth Sitka Spruce trees, the logging potential, and the endangerment it could bring to salmon spawning and the Alexander Archipelago wolf’s near-extinction. I BEG you to PLEASE reconsider what could be a disastrous decision for the immense beauty of our nation’s national forests, to thousands of small communities’ economies, dangerous climatic impacts, clean drinking water watersheds, animals already extremely adversely affected by loss of habitat and the millions of U.S. citizens who depend on our government to provide them with beautiful, protected lands in which they can recreate. We all know the immense greed that can overtake some people’s appropriate decision-making so I guarantee that no sooner than this conservation rule be rescinded, that greedy developers and mine owners and logging companies will be making plans for destruction for their own purposes. PLEASE don’t open the door to this devastation by rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area conservation rule. Thank you. As you can see from maps of the areas currently covered by this conservation rule, there are very few areas under this protection in the southeastern region of the United States. PLEASE do not allow even the possibility of damage of any kind to these most special and beloved areas (and others in NC as well as other southeastern states such as SC, GA, KY, WV and VA) by reneging on a conservation promise made 25 years ago.

I live in Canton, North Carolina, just a few minutes from the Pisgah National Forest, and not too far from the Nantahala National Forest. I'm writing against rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Allowing logging and other extractive activities in our national forests is short-sighted, and in many ways a reversal of the American ethos of embracing wilderness and ruggedness. The national parks, forest, and wilderness areas were created in response to the increasing industrialization of our nation and wilderness was touted as an escape from the noise, pollution, and activity of the cities. Let us retain the intent for solitude and untouched wilderness. Here in Western North Carolina, untouched wilderness IS the draw; it's not an impediment to increased economic activity or untapped potential. We live in one of the most biodiverse regions of the entire planet, and making it more convenient at a policy level at the expense of our national treasures is a display of uncreative weakness. I genuinely believe this rule would have a significant adverse effect on our communities and our tourism-based economy. Especially as we are just two years out from the damage Hurricane Helene brought to our area, many are looking to capitalize on new outdoor recreation opportunities to boost the economy. On a local level, we have many stakeholders in our community looking to expand access to the Pigeon River, which flows through Pisgah NF and Shining Rock Wilderness. Any upstream activities could compromise the quality and experience of new outdoors-based economic activity here in Canton. Even if only as rumors, it may deter people from choosing to spend their time and money here in WNC. Thank you for your time and consideration as you make your decisions.

Dear Secretary: I have found a lifelong value in many roadless areas across the country. This rule matters in a way that's hard to separate from everything I do outdoors. Intact land is irreplaceable. Roads end that. I hike the trails of the Wesser Bald area, treasure the view from the summit of Wesser Bald and want to protect the area from the invasion of non-native species. I have seen Paulownia tomentosa (Princess Tree), an invasive species, growing in the Wesser Bald vicinity. I am concerned that road building in the Wesser Bald area could contribute to its spread. I value hiking in areas where only native species are growing. If roads were built in this area, I lose the experience of hiking in an undisturbed area. Regarding the Wesser Bald in the Nantahala National Forest, North Carolina: Road disturbance changes soil in ways that favor invaders. Road construction alters soil pH, nutrient availability, moisture, and bulk density. These changes create conditions in which non-native plants outcompete native species — particularly displacing fern, moss, and lichen communities sensitive to disturbance I request two specific actions, in two forums. In the final EIS: supplement the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species analysis with an alternative-specific estimate of the acreage at incremental risk of invasive establishment under alternatives 2 and 3 and of the associated detection and treatment cost, using the same programmatic assumptions applied to recreation and passive use values in the Cost Benefit Analysis; or state on the record why an estimate is available for those categories and not for this one, and identify the specific design features and management requirements relied on to conclude that invasives “are not expected to greatly increase.” In the final rule: add an invasive-species establishment and treatment line to Table 1 of the Cost Benefit Analysis, or explain in the preamble why that category is excluded from the quantified cost column when the analysis identifies it at p. 27 as an effect of road construction. Roadless areas are priceless and irreplaceable. They represent a heritage we have received and are obligated to protect in perpetuity. I want the Department to understand that opposition to this rescission is genuine, and I'm one more voice adding to it. Yours sincerely, Stewart Stokes CommentID: RLC-20261006-PF7EAV

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. Our community relies upon the natural benefits of our wild, roadless spaces, particularly two inventoried roadless areas in the Nantahala National Forest: Wesser Bald (4,061 acres) and Cheoah Bald (7,795 acres). I own property that borders the Nantahala National Forst and any further clearing or development would significantly and negatively impact the area from a noise, pollution, and general beauty standpoint. I chose to live in a remote part of Western NC. I chose to border what was, and has been to date, “protected” land. That land needs to stay as is - roadless. Humans have destroyed so much natural habitat in the area, there is no reason to do more destruction. Our county relies on nature-based tourism for much-needed jobs and revenue to fund county services. Tourists that visit these wild, roadless spaces travel here because the forests are pristine, the scenery is iconic, the sounds of nature abound. Our county's quality of life, property value, and tourism all depend upon the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. Many endangered and protected species live in our forests, streams and rivers: wildlife that needs us (people) to make decisions that ensure the healthy forest ecosystems needed for food, shelter, and breeding. I personally depend on these forests and watersheds for clean drinking water. In addition, I kayak the rivers and lakes, and I value the wildlife habitats in our old growth forests. Cutting roads into these protected areas would only reduce the quality of life for plants, wildlife, and people. 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. Regards.

I am one of millions of Americans who value our public lands. I stand against rescission of the “roadless rule”. This rule, which was implemented after nearly 1 million public comments and over 600 stakeholder meetings, provides important protections for clean water as well as fisheries and wildlife habitat. The proposed rescission makes no financial sense, since the US Forest Service is severely underfunded and cannot currently maintain existing roads. The other premise behind the rescission is that new roads are needed to fight wildfires. USFS studies have proven that roads increase wildfire risk. Building roads in inventoried roadless area will have a significant impact on iconic species such as elk which depend on roadless areas of public lands and predator species like the grizzly bear. I am a North Carolinian and blessed to have national forests in each of the three geographic regions of the state. Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest contain abundant cold water fish habitat. Wild southern brook trout make their homes in the cold water headwater creeks of North Carolina’s high country. Specks as we call brook trout require highly oxygenated and sediment/pollution free waters to thrive. Building new roads would threaten these vital habitats. One area that I like to “blue-line” (the term we use for fishing the tiny creeks on USGS indicated by a blue line) is the Wilson Creek drainage. There are several areas that would be impacted by the rescission of the roadless rule. I’ll focus on one of the larger inventoried roadless areas that I am familiar with and why it would be infeasible to build roads there: Harper Creek is a 7,005-acre Inventoried Roadless Area in the Pisgah National Forest, in the Lower Wilson Creek watershed (HUC-12 030501010504), Grandfather Ranger District. This area is centered near 35.982N, 81.800W, with boundaries spanning roughly 35.948N to 36.014N latitude and 81.853W to 81.762W longitude. It drains into the Harper Creek. This IRA overlaps Wilson Creek Welcome Center, which could further affect the feasibility of road construction. 100 percent of this IRA (7,005 acres) has high erosion potential -- above 10 tons per acre per year based on the RUSLE model -- indicating high sensitivity to road building and other disturbance that could send sediment into downstream aquatic habitats. 22 percent of this IRA (1,569 acres) has a maximum road grade of 60% or greater, requiring high-cost engineered switchbacks or making conventional road construction infeasible. In North Carolina alone there are over 50 inventoried roadless areas totaling over 173,000 acres. I strongly encourage the Forest Service to keep our roadless areas wild, productive and accessible for generations to come and support the No Action Alternative.

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I live in Western North Carolina, where my family has called home since the late 1700s. I am also a rock climber and work in the outdoor recreation industry. As a result, I am deeply tied to this land and committed to the preservation of our forests. These undeveloped areas of the Nantahala National Forest and Pisgah National Forest are crucial for wildlife, clean water, recreation, and old-growth forests, which help foster ecological resilience. Southern Appalachia is home to a diverse mix of native plants and animals. Habitat destruction would be devastating to these species, including the endangered Eastern Hellbender, migratory birds like the Bald Eagle, native brook trout, and many more. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open up these protected lands and habitats to commercial logging, which also increases fire hazard. Studies show that fires are 4x more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Rescinding the roadless rule would also increase taxpayer burden. The existing National Forest road system currently has a $6.9 billion deferred maintenance backlog according to the draft EIS. The Forest Service is underfunded and short-staffed, and building more roads in forests will only increase the maintenance backlog. Additionally, I grew up hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing on these lands with my dad and Grandaddy, and cannot accurately describe how much they mean to my Appalachian family and me. These undeveloped areas allow us to exercise our God-given right to connect with nature and appreciate the wilderness he made for us. Access to public lands is a longstanding American tradition, and protecting them is essential so future generations can continue to recreate on them responsibly. Lastly, rescinding the Roadless Rule ignores the will of the American public. When the Clinton Administration first proposed the Roadless Rule back in 2000, it received over a million public comments supporting the rule, more than any administrative proposal in US history at the time. When the Trump Administration initially proposed rescinding the Roadless Rule last September, over 600,000 Americans submitted public comments, with over 99% of comments urging that the Roadless Rule be retained. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a terrible mistake and unfair to the American people and our native wildlife species. I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support “Alternative 1", the No Action alternative.

In the region surrounding Snowbird creek and the snowbird mountains within The Nantahala National Forest, a rich, biodiverse ecosystem thrives and provides countless benefits to the surrounding towns of Graham County and Robbinsville. The biodiversity that resides in this region includes over 1400 species of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The main watersheds in this region include Little Buffalo Creek, Sassafras Creek, Bearpen Branch and Meadow Branch. If the Roadless Rule that protects regions such as Snowbird is rescinded, The habitats that support the 1400 species, those such as the Brook trout, Bald Eagle, and Ocoee Salamander, would be disrupted and destroyed from the noise, pollution, erosion and habitat fragmentation that building roads in these natural regions inherently cause. Considering the region of snowbird supports a thriving economy of many leisure pursuits such as Birding (birdwatching), hunting and fishing, the disruption and destruction of the habitats (forests and watersheds) that these species live in would subsequently squash a 10s of billions of dollar industry within North Carolina that is supported with the presence of these species and watersheds.

I urge the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule and keep full protection for the Chunky Gal (addition) Inventoried Roadless Area in the Nantahala National Forest, and for every roadless area. My name is Sarah McAuliffe, and I live in Hiawassee, Georgia, a short drive from Chunky Gal. When I was only 8, I started hiking the Appalachian Trail, following in the footsteps of my grandfather Dan Quillian, an acclaimed longbow archer and conservationist. He helped start the native animal zoo at Athens' Memorial Park, now Bear Hollow, which cares for animals that can't be returned to the wild. Within my lifetime, that has included a bald eagle. Seeing it unable to live a full life is like seeing America hurting too. Here in Hiawassee, I see eagles flying over Lake Chatuge. I can't say what kind they are, and isn't that the point? They're doing well, far away from us, in the sky and at the tops of the trees. Eagles need giant trees, clean water full of fish, and quiet. Roads take away all three. Roads will not lessen wildfire. A 2026 study of 32 years of national forest fire data found ignitions four times higher near roads than in roadless areas, and 84 percent of U.S. wildfires are human-caused. A century of road-enabled fire suppression is what built up the fuel in the first place. Chunky Gal's 3,336 acres hold federally endangered species including the Carolina northern flying squirrel, gray, Indiana, and northern long-eared bats, green pitcher plant, and rock gnome lichen, along with the eastern hellbender and rare fen and bog communities found almost nowhere else. Its cold headwater streams depend on intact forest shade, and road sediment would bury the clean gravel these species need. National forests supply drinking water to at least 124 million Americans. The stillness and sounds of nature help us regulate our bodies and minds and find moments of peace and clarity. Road noise would take that from the animals and from hikers like me. I also love to look around and wonder what in these forests may one day help cure diseases like cancer. More than half of current cancer drugs come from compounds first found in nature. Places like Chunky Gal are libraries we have barely opened. It is my dream that the wilderness stays wild. Untouched wildness is our greatest treasure, for those on the planet now and those who'll come after we're gone. Our legacy matters. Please see my attached comment for full details and sources. Sincerely, Sarah McAuliffe