Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-463356

Opposes rescissionPosted September 22, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “hiking, camping, and exploring”
    • “preserve their tourist and recreational value”
    • “beautiful places in the United States”
  • Water Quality Quantity
    • “incredibly clean, clear water”
    • “roads are major sources of sediment”
    • “damage the streams and waterfalls”
    • “water quality assurance”
  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “fish, snakes, and birds that call these waters home”
    • “protecting environments”
    • “ecosystem restoration”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “modest increase in wildfire prevention”
    • “more roads can increase human-caused wildfire ignitions”
    • “concerns, especially out West about wildfires”

What it names

Roadless areas
Harper CreekLost Cove

The comment

I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule and jeopardizing the beautiful places in the United States that I've had the privilege of hiking, camping, and exploring. In the North Carolina mountains, I’ve hiked to Hunt Fish Falls and Gragg Prong Falls and swum in the incredibly clean, clear water alongside fish, snakes, and birds that call these waters home. In addition to protecting environments to preserve their tourist and recreational value, the Forest Service acknowledges that roads are major sources of sediment. By opening these roadless areas to additional construction, we will damage the streams and waterfalls that make Lost Cove and Harper Creek so special. While there are concerns, especially out West about wildfires, the Forest Service’s own analysis says rescission would result in only a ‘modest’ increase in wildfire prevention. I don't believe that a nationwide repeal of the rule is justified, especially when more roads can increase human-caused wildfire ignitions. I know that the existing Roadless Rule already allows some road construction and timber cutting when needed for public safety, resource protection and ecosystem restoration. This rule has been functioning as intended since 2001 and continues to allow for the environmental protection, water quality assurance, and public land access that we deserve as stewards of our public lands. I strongly oppose eliminating the Roadless Rule.

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless