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. I am a sixth-generation native of the Tusquitee valley in Clay County, NC, and have hiked and camped in the Tusquitee Bald inventoried roadless area my entire life. This backcountry is a special place to me and many residents of western North Carolina, both "locals" like myself and newer residents. The economic value generated by this pristine area, which provides prime natural settings for hiking, hunting, trout fishing, camping, and horseback riding, is a boon to the local economies of Clay, Cherokee, and Macon counties. Upholding full protection for inventoried roadless areas such as Tusquitee Bald is a fundamental component of protecting water quality in our nation's most pristine watersheds. While it is an obvious statement, it merits repeating that there is no biological, economic, nor spiritual substitute for clean water. The Tusquitee Bald roadless area protects headwaters of the most significant recreational and trout streams in our area, including Tusquitee Creek, designated High Quality Waters by the NC Department of Environmental Quality; and Fires Creek and Nantahala River, both of which are designated Outstanding Resource Waters, which is the highest water quality classification conferred by the state and which signifies exceptional ecological or recreational value (both values in the case of these two streams). The U.S. Forest Service's own research confirms that roadless areas are critical to watershed protection (USFS Environmental Impact Statement in 2000 and 2001). Moreover, it is well established that road construction, use, maintenance, and repair harm water quality and fragment aquatic habitat (Dominick A. DellaSala, James R. Karr, David M. Olson, 2011, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation). Sediment levels increase, often by orders of magnitude (ibid.). As a former highway engineer (NC Professional Engineer License Number 032565, currently inactive), I can attest to how notoriously challenging that erosion and sedimentation control is on linear developments such as roads, mountain roads in particular. Sediment is our primary water pollutant by volume, and a major threat to rare aquatic species such as the eastern hellbender and endemic game fishes such as the Southern Appalachian brook trout. In consideration of our Appalachian culture and backcountry recreational heritage, our pristine mountain waters, our rare aquatic species gems, and more, 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 public comment. Sincerely, Philip W. Moore 3192 Tusquittee Rd Hayesville, NC 28904

To Whom It May Concern: My family is a registered First Family of TN to arrive across the Appalachians for TN statehood in 1796. Those Mountains are magnificent and a huge historical marker. I moved with my family later from GA to Hayesville, NC to retire in a more relaxed environment vs metro Atlanta. I was in awe to learn that the lumbermen of late 19th / 20th century left the Appalachians to go west to Seattle, Washington to Cascades and the Olympic mountains. The Appalachian land was made into National Forest and Parks, so in Washington. My son now lives in Seattle. So, my family now reaches across the great divide, from sea to shining sea. My family DOES NOT want any of these protected environments to be any further disturbed. As a great country we have already pillaged these areas. We learned the value of protecting these areas. NOW we have to remember this value of knowledge of the environment to protect not only the ecosystems in the mountains but for ALL of US. We all have benefited from personal growth gained in hiking and camping and being with the forest. Taking young Girl Scouts to areas like this to learn what resources are - is a great memory for us. New businesses and towns have emerged over the last 130 years while protecting these precious areas. Please do not further disturb anymore Native American heritage. There are still unmarked graves. Please do not take this last bit of dignity away from people. Value is not always in a return on investment with money. The greater return is for a moral and prospering society that values more than money. Thom Tillis, Senator from NC, favorably replied to our request, also. Please do not develop the protected NO ROADS Areas anywhere. Please DO NOT rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We are an educated society. We should be able to figure a better way to manage our resources wisely, to quote a Girl Scout Law. Respectfully Submitted, Martha and Greg Sanderson 826 Walker Point Rd Hayesville, NC 28904

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 [Insert a specific roadless area here, e.g., Linville Gorge] near my home in _________. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because [Insert your specific reason, e.g., I depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water, I hike the backcountry trails, or I value the pristine wildlife habitats]. 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. Albert James Siemens 104 Misty Dr Old Fort, NC 28762

I am writing as a resident of Swain County, NC, a business owner, a member of the Nantahala Gorge Association and the executive director of Need MoreOoutdoors. Each and every one of these puts me in a position to realize the negative impact of the U.S. Forest Service's proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Two areas impact me directly: Cheoah Bald and Wesser Bald. Both the Cheoah Bald and the Wesser Bald areas form a significant portion of the forested mountain landscape experienced by visitors traveling through and recreating in the Nantahala Gorge. The area is specifically identified as an example of a roadless landscape associated with outdoor recreation. The significance of both impacted areas to recreation extends well beyond the river. The Appalachian Trail bisects the Cheoah Bald Roadless Area, connecting the Nantahala Gorge with one of the country's most important recreation resources. The Roadless Rule has provided a stable management framework for more than two decades. Removing that framework creates uncertainty about the future management and character of landscapes directly adjacent to our commercial operations and surrounding one of the region's most important recreation corridors. Commercial outfitters and guides nationally have similarly identified the character of roadless landscapes as an important component of customer demand and have raised concerns about the business uncertainty associated with broad rescission of the Rule. In an area such as ours: rural, surrounded by national forest/national parks, there is little opportunity for local children growing up. Working in and with these areas is an opportunity. Do not take that away from them. I recognize that the Forest Service must actively manage National Forest lands. There may be circumstances where targeted access is necessary for wildfire response, forest health, emergency response, community safety, or other legitimate management needs. My opposition to the roadless does not mean I oppose those activities. I do, however, believe those needs can be addressed through deliberate, site-specific decisions without eliminating the national baseline that has protected roadless landscapes for more than two decades. The Nantahala River, Appalachian Trail, Cheoah Bald, and surrounding National Forest lands function together as a recreation destination, an outlet for young people who need to spend time outdoors and in our forests, and an investment saving these areas for future generations. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Juliet Jacobsen Kastorff Bryson City, NC 28713

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal to fully or partially rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an avid hiker and student interested in conservation and our public lands living in Hickory, North Carolina. National forests and inventoried roadless areas matter deeply to me because I hike, have memories in the outdoors with family members, care about the environment and the state of the world for future generations. Fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule would threaten unfragmented backcountry landscapes, wildlife habitats, and clean water sources. Roads fragment ecosystems in ways that cause long-term ecological harm, and dismantling these protections undermines the natural integrity of our public lands. I urge the Forest Service to drop the proposed rescission and instead support Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) to maintain full, permanent protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Sincerely, Delaney Tallent Hickory, NC 28602

Hello Forest Service, My name is Matt Fischer and I am a resident of Asheville, NC. I vehemently oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid lover of our natural world and someone who thrives in the outdoors, our roadless lands and wilderness areas are deeply meaningful to me and I believe it is not only essential to conserve these last wild places we have left, but to be working to cultivate and revitalize them. Building infrastructure in wild areas brings harm to these environments for all living things that create thriving ecosystems. Waterways are polluted, invasive species spread, native fonta and flora are stressed. This degradation compounds itself and leads to these places no longer functioning as they should. This has been a cycle throughout human intervention in the natural world that has created an imbalance and scarcity of resources. By cultivating and protecting these places, nature can thrive and resources can revitalize themselves. Additionally, these are places that can be enjoyed by humans in ways where they can interact and connect with the natural world in meaningful ways without the interference of infrastructure. These experiences allow us to better understand nature and for people to care more about protecting its vitality. I understand this well as someone who has camped, hiked, photographed and recreated in many wilderness areas protected by the roadless rule throughout our country. As a native of Western North Carolina, this proposition hits close to home as many areas of Pisgah and other surrounding National Forests would have degraded protections with this rescission. For the reasons listed above, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a grave mistake. Thank you for your consideration, Matt Fischer 128 Longview Road Asheville, NC 28806

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate the Roadless Rule. I am a whitewater kayaker, outdoor recrecreator, and steward of this earth. The enactment of the action would lead to the dimise of natural spaces Roadless forests represent some of the most intact, resilient ecosystems left in our country. They filter and store clean drinking water, provide refuge for vulnerable species, and serve as critical carbon sinks critical to mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change. People hike, forage, bike, fish, camp, ski, climb, and find solace in these remote places. Roads spread invasive species, fragment wildlife habitat, and erode the very ecological resilience we need in the face of a warming climate. More roads in the backcountry also mean more fires: research shows wildfires are more likely to ignite near roads. Once roads and clearcuts fragment these landscapes, the damage is permanent. Weakening or repealing the Roadless Rule would be a grave mistake. I do not support any of the proposed action alternatives that roll back the Roadless Rule. I urge the USDA to abandon this misguided effort and instead strengthen its commitment to protecting America’s roadless forests for the clean water, climate resilience, recreation, and biodiversity they provide. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. References: Aplet, G.H., Hartger, P. & Dietz, M.S. Three-decade record of contiguous-U.S. national forest wildfires indicates increased density of ignitions near roads. fire ecol 22, 8 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2 Mildrexler, D.J., Berner, L.T., Law, B.E. & Both, M.S. Roadless rule rescission threatens highest integrity forest ecosystems in the United States. Biological Conservation 321, 111950 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111950 Sincerely, Ryland Harrison Sylva, NC 28779-1362 rylandkayaks@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I believe we need to save space for these wild places that our nation has historically and environmentally protected. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will open a floodgate of destruction equipment and vehicle intrusion. With an influx of intruders and open access, once it does open it will be impossible to turn it back. I do not support rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule in our National Forest lands. As a volunteer in the National Parks and forests of our nation I wear three hats. I am a trail keeper with the Mountain to Sea Trail which is a NC State Park. I have woven a foot trail through mature forests and guided construction around trees and natural terrain with concern for every foot of transgression into the wilderness the trail will make. My guiding principals are step lightly, leave no trace, respect the trees. Road construction does not follow these principles. I am a National Parks volunteer and witness the abundance of people seeking well being in the forests and trails of our parks. I see citizens discovering and exploring the wonders of nature in beautiful settings with mature forests full of trees and in remote areas devoid of traffic and deconstruction. All citizens benefit when we secure our natural resources and habitats from exploitation and profit seeking corporations. Rescinding the Roadless Rule in our parks will diminish that experience. I am a Sierra Club outings leader. I take people on trail walks to explore and discover together in the safety of preserved forests and to celebrate the beautiful oaks, birches, locust and evergreens of our woodlands. Trails make connections. Connections lead to appreciation and appreciation leads to conservation and protection. Once you make a connection with the grandeur of the trees in our forest all elements of deconstruction become a threat to the survival of our healthy National Forests and Parks. There is no quiet appreciation to be found in road construction. As Mary Oliver wrote: When I am among the trees, especially the willows and the honey locust, equally the beech, the oaks and the pines, they give off such hints of gladness. I would almost say that they save me, and daily. I am so distant from the hope of myself, in which I have goodness, and discernment, and never hurry through the world but walk slowly, and bow often. Around me the trees stir in their leaves and call out, “Stay awhile.” The light flows from their branches. And they call again, “It's simple,” they say, “and you too have come into the world to do this, to go easy, to be filled with light, and to shine.” I speak for the trees. I speak for our forest needs. I am opposed the rescinding the Roadless Rules Act of 2001 Shelton Wilder Shelton Wilder 608 Dick Watson Road Deep Gap, NC 28618 Sincerely, Shelton Wilder

Docket ID: FS-2025-0001 / RIN 0596-AD66 Proposed Action: Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation (National Forest System Lands) [1] To the U.S. Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination staff, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to completely rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For a quarter of a century, this rule has successfully preserved 44.7 million acres of our country’s last remaining wild, unroaded public lands. As someone who deeply values America's natural heritage, I frequently visit and cherish our iconic public lands, including Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Muir Woods National Monument, Point Reyes National Seashore, Rocky Mountain National Park, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. While these specific sites are managed under national park protections, their ecological health, scenic integrity, and wilderness value depend entirely on the intact National Forest System lands that border them. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to adequately consider how removing roadless protections from adjacent national forests—such as the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in North Carolina, the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, and the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado—will degrade these world-class park landscapes. Specifically, I urge the Forest Service to keep the national Roadless Rule in place for the following reasons: •Impacts on Park Watersheds and Clean Water: Roadless national forests protect the headwaters and critical watersheds that supply clean drinking water to tens of millions of Americans and feed into our national park systems. Allowing new road construction and commercial timber harvesting near park boundaries will drastically increase soil erosion, stream sedimentation, and water degradation, directly threatening delicate aquatic ecosystems like those in the Appalachian and Rocky Mountain regions. •Fragmentation of Crucial Wildlife Corridors: Large mammals, migratory birds, and endangered species do not recognize bureaucratic boundaries. Intact roadless forest areas serve as essential sanctuary buffers and migration corridors connecting to our national parks. Paving new roads and introducing commercial logging equipment right up to park borders will fracture these fragile habitats, isolate wildlife populations, and accelerate biodiversity loss. •Fiscal Irresponsibility and Backlogs: The Forest Service already faces a staggering nationwide road and bridge deferred maintenance backlog of nearly $7 million (or up to $6 billion globally across all infrastructure types). It is fiscally reckless to eliminate a rule to build new, subsidized industrial logging and mining roads when the agency cannot afford to maintain the 370,000+ miles of roads it already manages. Taxpayer dollars should be spent on reducing this massive backlog and restoring existing infrastructure, not expanding it. •Degradation of Recreation and Scenic Values: Millions of people visit the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Smokies, and the Rockies for their unbroken vistas, quiet backcountry recreation, and wild spaces. Industrializing the surrounding national forests with new road networks and clearcuts will fundamentally mar the panoramic views, quiet atmospheres, and outdoor recreation economies that these regions rely on. • The USDA's own DEIS indicates that repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule is likely to cause significant environmental and economic harm to undeveloped backcountry forests, wildlife, and water resources, while offering little to no meaningful reduction in wildfire risk. I urge the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture to reject the total rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Please protect our shared public lands, downstream communities, and the wild buffers that keep our national parks whole. Sincerely, Elaine G. Jones 6015 Charing Pl. Charlotte, NC 28211

Please keep the wilderness that we have left as WILDERNESS.We do not need to access areas that are best left alone for the wildness that still exists there. Many things in life and nature can't be improved on. Untouched wilderness is one of those things! - Richard Ellington, 109 Bruton Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Sara McBride 29 Le An Hurst Rd Asheville, NC 28803-1819 mcbsara07@gmail.com

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. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I live within 30 minutes of many of them in the Pisgah National Forest. I depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water, and I value the pristine wildlife habitats that rolling back this rule will destroy. These roadless areas: •Provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans and store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests •Provide critical habitat for 1,600+ threatened species, which in my area include the Eastern Hellbender and several species of bat •Contain priceless historical artifacts dating back 1000s of years •Provide a pristine natural environment for hiking, hunting, and fishing •Help generate over $200M tourist dollars and support 1160 jobs in Transylvania County alone New roads and logging will destroy these irreplaceable natural wonders forever and threaten native species while introducing invasive species like the Emerald Ash Borer which now threatens the Canada Hemlock Forest ecosystem within this area. 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. Sincerely, James G. Hardy 542 Middle Mount Rd. Pisgah Forest, NC 28768 828-862-6969

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. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because I live within 30 minutes of many of them in the Pisgah National Forest. I depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water, and I value the pristine wildlife habitats that rolling back this rule will destroy. These roadless areas: •Provide clean drinking water to 60 million Americans and store 20% of all carbon in U.S. national forests •Provide critical habitat for 1,600+ threatened species, which in my area include the Eastern Hellbender and several species of bat •Contain priceless historical artifacts dating back 1000s of years •Provide a pristine natural environment for hiking, hunting, and fishing •Help generate over $200M tourist dollars and support 1160 jobs in Transylvania County alone New roads and logging will destroy these irreplaceable natural wonders forever and threaten native species while introducing invasive species like the Emerald Ash Borer which now threatens the Canada Hemlock Forest ecosystem within this area. 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. Sincerely, Alice B. Hardy 542 Middle Mount Rd. Pisgah Forest, NC 28768 828-862-6969

I am writing as a resident of Craven County, North Carolina, to express my strong opposition to the proposal ending the 2001 Roadless Rule. My family has hunted, fished, camped and hiked for over 40 years in the Croatan Forest. I believe keeping the Roadless Rule is in the best interest of both the land and those of us who enjoy it. I can't see how this change would benefit anyone other than those in the commercial timber and mineral extraction industries, certainly not those of us who cherish the area's natural heritage. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rescission and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Jerry Phillips 1820 US Highway 17 N New Bern, NC 28560

To whom it may concern, Please don't dismantle or rollback the 2001 Roadless Rule. I live very close to the Pisgah National Forest and visit many areas in Western NC. We have one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. There are new butterflies, salamander, plants, etc that are always being discovered. It is unbelievable. After visiting Europe this summer and seeing virtually no deep woods and experiencing incredibly hot areas, I so appreciate the cool breeze and having the ability to access the forest. Asheville has some clean water thanks to this watershed and it supports our economy with tourism. We must not cut more roads into these woods. They need to have their own ecosystem in order to survive. Our Earth is getting hotter. We needs these trees to absorb whatever carbon that it can. I urge the US Forest Service and the USDA to maintain full protection of the Roadless Rule. Thank you for your time. -Marcelle Crago Candler, NC 28715

I urge you not to remove federal bans on logging, commercial development, and road construction in our backcountry areas here in Westeern North Carolina, including Linville Gorge, Laurel Mountain, and the South Mills River watershed. I have lived in this area for over 30 years and remain here because of these pristine, unspoiled tracts of nature. Thank you for taking into account my opinion. Sheila D. Dunn 200 Country Club Road Asheville, NC 28804 sheilagdunn@gmail.com 828-776-3661

To Whom it may concern: I Matthew A Honiotes am NOT in favor of changing the Special Areas; Roadless Areas Conservation regulations. Matthew A Honiotes 61 Bull Mountain Road Asheville, NC 28805

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The American idea of a frontier still means something to me. I have hunted my whole life, and the work required to hike or paddle into country that remains unroaded is part of the value. Putting more roads into these forests increases pressure and erodes the ability to distance yourself from those who rely on vehicles. Roadless areas in the Croatan National Forest, including the Pocosin Addition, Sheep Ridge Addition, Catfish Lake North, Catfish Lake South, and Pond Pine B units, represent the Public Trust set aside for exactly this kind of recreation, and the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would damage or destroy what makes them worth seeking out. I have fished my entire life as well, and what roadless protection means in practice is less-pressured fisheries and cleaner water. North Carolina holds 38 inventoried roadless areas totaling 172,416 acres, and across the Southern region, which includes North Carolina, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Opening these forests to road construction does not leave those values intact. I ask that the agency address, specifically and on the record, what happens to water quality in the watersheds draining the Croatan units when the buffer that roadless designation currently provides is removed. One of my best bird sightings was a Swainson's Warbler, a species that requires old-growth bottomland hardwood habitat. The Roadless Rule protects exactly those habitats, and the agency's own record supports what anyone who has spent time watching birds in unroaded forest already knows. The DEIS cites the 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. There is plenty of accessible timber already available in the Croatan, and the agency must explain why fragmenting the remaining roadless habitat is necessary when its own evidence documents this degree of harm to bird communities. The proposal attempts to justify 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 explain why the proposal departs from those prior findings and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS. The economic case for rescission is equally unsupported by the agency's own analysis. The 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 agency projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue to the Forest Service against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, a net present value spanning negative $92 million to positive $199 million, and a road maintenance backlog already sitting at $6.9 billion. The agency has not established that a net benefit exists, and I ask directly how expanding a system it cannot afford to maintain is justified by numbers it cannot resolve in favor of the action. The proposal also argues for state-by-state alternatives to a national rule, but the agency's own record acknowledges that "the USDA discussed its dissatisfaction with the Roadless Rule and highlighted its rejection of the Roadless Rule's 'inflexible "one-size-fits-all" nationwide rulemaking approach.' 70 Fed.Reg. at 25,656." The agency must confront its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and it must explain how this proposal avoids the legal deficiencies that ended the last attempt to replace the national rule with a state-by-state framework. Finally, the proposal's challenge to the statutory authority underlying the 2001 rule is contradicted by the courts that already examined that question. The Tenth Circuit held: "Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we REVERSE the district court's order granting Plaintiffs declaratory relief and issuing a permanent injunction, and REMAND the case for the district court to vacate the permanent injunction." The agency must address that court's holding that the 2001 rule fell within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. Any position to the contrary requires a legal explanation the agency has not yet provided. Sincerely, Elliott Lupton Havelock, NC 28532

Please keep the Roadless Rule to protect our forests. We need to keep some area natural for the health of the land, its waters and trees. Thank you Elizabeth Cheesborough 10 Presley Rd Asheville, NC 28805

I am opposed to the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule in North Carolina. As a resident of Western North Carolina, I am intimately familiar with the importance of the truly valuable areas contained in the Pisgah National Forest and the Nantahala National Forest. One important aspect of these areas is watershed protection and climate resilience. Our drinking water is naturally filtered by the intact, unfragmented forest floors, which is also our best natural defense against catastrophic soil erosion and severe downstream flooding, which increasingly threaten our mountain communities as we have seen not only with Hurricane Helene, but many other natural events as well. Western North Carolina’s multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy relies directly on the wild, uninterrupted nature of these public lands. Opening these backcountry areas to industrial use will permanently degrade the world-class hiking, fly-fishing, and climbing experiences that draw visitors from around the globe and support local businesses. The Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests contain unique, ancient ecosystems and unique endangered wildlife species found only in these forests that cannot survive the disruption brought by heavy machinery and road corridors. Relying solely on local, shifting forest management plans does not offer the permanent, ironclad security that the 2001 Roadless Rule provides. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture to reject this rollback and maintain the full, existing federal protections for North Carolina's backcountry. Please consider what is best for not only the current residents of Western North Carolina, but for the many generations to come. Sincerely, Kim Chao Hendersonville, NC 28791