Read the comments.

Our national treasures are not for sale! I do not support removing the 2001 Roadless area conservation protections. Our natural areas are why America is great. Allowing profiteering is unacceptable. I live in Kentucky. Home to Mammoth Cave and Daniel Boone National Forest. We are saying preservation over profit.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Having lived in places that will be directly affected by rescission of the Roadless Rule, including Washington and North Carolina, and hope to visit more soon, I am filing this comment against Docket FS-2025-0001 because what is at stake is not a policy abstraction. It is land that has stood for thousands of years and should not be carved up by an administration against the wishes of its citizens. Indiana has so few uninterrupted areas of public land that include Mogan Ridge, at 8,435 acres in the Hoosier National Forest, carries an outsized weight. We should be doing everything we can to preserve what already exists, not breaking it up further for industry or potential data centers. The Wolfpen area in Daniel Boone National Forest is Kentucky's entire roadless inventory, all 2,835 acres of it, and it protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge shelter over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. Indiana bat, Kentucky arrow darter, blackside dace, and northern long-eared bat also depend on that forest. These are not species that can simply relocate. Rescission does not threaten inconvenience; it threatens extinction, and I want the agency to explain in its final record what specific analysis it performed for each of these listed species before concluding that loss of roadless protections would not accelerate their decline. Washington alone holds 139 inventoried roadless areas totaling 2,014,832 acres, and across the Pacific Northwest region 1,522 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. Clean water is essential for the everyday health and well-being of Americans, and repealing this rule will contaminate water supplies. The agency knows this. Its own analysis establishes that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. I ask the agency to explain, in response to this comment, how it squares that finding with a proposal to remove protections from the very unroaded lands whose sediment-free streams supply drinking water to communities across the country. The proposal invokes wildfire management as a rationale, 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 this rescission with the ignition data in its own DEIS and explain why a proposal that will increase the roaded footprint of the national forests is an appropriate wildfire response. On the economics, the agency's own record concedes: "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." I ask the agency to reconcile the proposal with its own cost-benefit analysis, which projects timber revenue of $5.2 to $11.4 million a year against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, and to explain how an action whose own numbers cannot establish a net benefit justifies expanding a road system already carrying a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The proposal argues that state-by-state approaches can replace one 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 Ninth Circuit evaluated that precise experiment and found it wanting. The agency should address how this attempt avoids the same deficiencies. Finally, on the question of statutory authority, the record contains this holding from a court that reviewed it: "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 Tenth Circuit found the 2001 rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and MUSYA and did not create de facto wilderness. The lands should be preserved for future generations to maintain environmental stability and the continued existence of species that will otherwise go extinct, not sacrificed for short-term profit. The agency must state plainly and on the record the legal basis for any position contrary to that holding. Sincerely, A concerned citizen

Secretary Rollins, I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Rule. Throughout my life some of my greatest memories have been exploring the preserved wilderness of this country through its many national forests and parks like Yosemite and the Smoky Mountains. In my home state I have spent so much time exploring Daniel Boone National Forest and hiking Mammoth Cave National Park. These places are so special because they give me, and countless others, a place to go away from technology and progress and connect to nature and ourselves. Outside of myself, keeping these areas roadless is important to so many habitats and helps preserve migration corridors that are few and far between. Preservation of this land is necessary to preserve biodiversity. I object whole-heartedly to the entirety of this rule change for many reasons. This rule would allow increased logging and building of new roads that would increase wildfire risk and jeopardize clean water in those areas. (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s42408-026-00450-2) These actions will also increase the spread of invasive species that are detrimental to our wild areas. (https://roadless.org/learning/concerns/invasive-species) The best thing you can do is leave our wild areas as they are, untouched by roads. Our protected, roadless areas are so important, and they deserve preservation not destruction. Please do the best thing for our environment, our health, and our economy and leave our wilderness roadless.

Hello. I am an engineer for the energy industry who (in addition to my engineering degree) also holds a degree in Wildlife Biology from a top agriculture University. In addition to my professional credentials, I have also contributed thousands of volunteer hours to the exploration & mapping of caves across the U.S., including those in the Grand Canyon NP, Mammoth Cave NP, Tonto National Forest, & Fern Cave Federal Wildlife Refuge. I have also volunteered as a citizen scientist assisting the collection of microbes caves. Those microbes are studied at top universities by labs focused on novel drug discovery, material science, & carbon sequestration. My recreational interests are extensive -- I cave, rock climb, backpack, day hike, overland/off-road, etc. throughout the United States. In the last 10 years, I have travelled to several dozen National Forests for these activities including the Chattahoochee NF, Bridger-Teton NF, Daniel Boone NF, Monongahela NF, Petrified Forest NF, & Shasta-Trinity NF. While doing so, I strive to shop locally, dine locally, & support the small rural towns. For me, the biggest draw to areas such as this is the remote & unbroken environment. As any wildlife biologist can attest, habitats change dramatically when the continuous forest is interrupted by open space such as those created by roads. Additionally, as any caver can attest, some of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet can be hiding in plain sight (often just under our feet). I am especially concerned about sedimentation caused by building roads & logging in areas that would have otherwise been roadless. Not only can such activities degrade drinking-water supplies on the surface, but it can also destroy underground conduits of water such as those found in karst landscapes. This impact wields a double-edged sword: both the humans & the habitats that are reliant on the underground water supply are jeopardized. This impact isn't limited to a few rural towns or scattered populations, either. Nearly 40% of the drinkable groundwater in the U.S. comes from karst aquifers! Professionally, I am no strange to Federal documentation. I frequently write supporting documents for nuclear power plants that are reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I draw upon this experience when I review the documentation "supporting" the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule & I am deeply troubled by the gaps in supporting evidence as well as failures of adequate planning. Below is an example of such: The DEIS does not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. The USFS states this itself: "The alternatives evaluated in detail in this DEIS focus on the geographic locations (boundaries) in roadless rulemaking" (DEIS p. 34). Alt. 1 retains the 2001 Rule's prohibitions; Alt. 2 removes them nationwide; Alt. 3 "would continue the existing Rule's exceptions and provides for locally led boundary modifications" (DEIS p. 35). No alternative analyzed in detail varies the prohibitions & exceptions themselves according to stated resource criteria. NEPA requires "a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action... that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal," 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C)(iii), & the DEIS cites the parallel requirement at 7CFR1b.7(h) on the same page where it describes its own range as boundary-focused. The rest of this comment is attached as a file because the online portal's character limit is preventing the discussion of the matter in full.

Dear Chief: As a parent, my objection to this rescission is grounded in the same thing that grounds most of my parenting: a refusal to let short-term convenience substitute for long-term responsibility. People deserve clean air, forests, and water. I have so many memories with my daughter in and around Daniel Boone/Wolfpen. The party pushing this rule forward is the same one concerned with declining birth rate. You cannot demand for us to keep having kids without a habitable and safe planet to leave them. Regarding the Wolfpen in the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky: Quiet, undeveloped recreation on roadless lands supports local economies through tourism, outfitting, hunting, and fishing. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the Wolfpen, Daniel Boone National Forest to road construction and associated ground disturbance. The direct and indirect effects of that activity are precisely what makes a specific comment about this area necessary. The Roadless Rule supports the drinking water supply for 25 million Americans and offers critical protection of wildlife habitat and recreational assets. In short, rivers in roadless areas are essential for both people and nature. 78% of protected rivers in the U.S. are protected ONLY by the Roadless Rule. This water reaches 25 million people across the country, often at downstream distances far from roadless areas. Clearing trees and building infrastructure disrupt soil and root biogeochemical systems that naturally filter contaminants, driving up public water treatment costs. Further, roadbuilding and logging can cause sediment build up in lakes and rivers, which must be filtered out. Chemicals from construction can also end up in the water supply. Reductions in forest cover resulting from rescinding the roadless rule may compromise water quality in the U.S., among other negative consequences for animals and ecosystems. Finally, the current Roadless Rule already allows for necessary forest management, including fire breaks, controlled burns, and emergency wildfire management. In fact, building roads into untouched backcountry can actually increase wildfire risk by introducing invasive species, fragmenting forest ecosystems, and giving access to illegal activities that spark fires. Science and experience have shown that intact, undisturbed forests are often more resilient to fire than those opened up by development. I oppose this. So does the record. In earnest, Emily Markus CommentID: RLC-20261005-76YE4E

I am heartsick about losing more forest in Kentucky. The long history of extraction in this state has left scars that are felt in families and communities. When we drove through the Daniel Boone National Forest last week, I loved being able to tell my children that we are protecting forests now, that we know better now. Please don't take away my ability to give my children hope for the future of their state.

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Conservation Rule. I encourage Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative. As a young adult, I feel it is my responsibility to support the preservation of wild backcountry areas for future generations. My favorite memories from growing up in Central Kentucky are the countless backcountry camping trips my friends & I would take to the Daniel Boone National Forest. My recent move to Western Montana has only strengthened my love for these wild forestlands. I hold these dear forests close to my heart and hope to share these special places with my nieces, nephews, and even future children. Rolling back the Roadless Rule would only destroy this opportunity for generations to come. Aside from the value that wild areas provide to humans, we must also consider the intrinsic value of the land in and of itself, and treat it as such. Rescission of the Roadless Rule will open currently protected areas to logging, road construction, oil and gas drilling, and numerous other industrial activities. It has been proven by numerous long-term scientific research studies (that can be found within the following embedded links) that logging poses detrimental threats to our environment as a whole. According to the USFS webpage, “National forests are the single most important water resource in the U.S.” Roads are a major contributor to water pollution, so it is imperative that we keep the Roadless Rule in order to protect our municipal water. Logging also increases wildfire risk, destroys wildlife habitat, threatens biodiversity, degrades soil, and accelerates climate change. As stated on the United States Forest Service (USFS) webpage, the USFS’s mission is “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” (1). The rescission of this rule directly contradicts the mission statement as proven by the aforementioned resources. The Roadless Rule protects irreplaceable landscapes. Keep wild places wild. I urge you to adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule. Sincerely, Madelyn Manis Montana

I spent most of my 76 years living in Kentucky visiting the Daniel Boone national Forest. Participating in workshops put on by the US Forest service to monitor threaten bird species in Kentucky. I also taught high school biology for 27 years and then managed a large national historic site in Kentucky for another 16 years. I believe rescinding the roadless area act will cause great harm to forests in Kentucky. Putting in roads is a tremendous expense, only to allow development and logging which by my observation, always leads to major erosion. And the erosion and sediment that it creates affects all the aquatic organisms in the watersheds. Mature for us, take in carbon dioxide and give all oxygen which we cannot live without. using a scare tactic, such as it will prevent forest fires. I am a certified wildland firefighter, and participate in many prescribed burns in Kentucky and North Carolina on restored Prairie areas and Woodland Settings. Prescribed burns are an effective way to manage forests. I have seen the recreational and tourist industry flourish in eastern Kentucky and the land between the lakes all without opening up pristine forest areas for development. And putting in roads inevitably leads to development. Don Pelly Educator Land Manager Co-author, Benefits of converting agricultural land to native grasses and wildflowers.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Bird watching is good for my brain health, and I have access to look for pileated woodpeckers in Daniel Boone National Forest. I do not want to lose that access. This comment opposes the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). Daniel Boone National Forest holds Kentucky's entire roadless inventory: the Wolfpen roadless area, at 2,835 acres, protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The DEIS cites the finding 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. That finding describes exactly what is at stake for the birds I go to Daniel Boone to find. The forest also shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats in the deep sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species, along with the Indiana bat, Kentucky arrow darter, blackside dace, and northern long-eared bat. Rescinding the rule removes the principal protection for all of it. I ask that the agency explain how the rescission accounts for documented impacts on bird communities and sensitive species in the one inventoried roadless area in Kentucky. The agency's own record says: "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 roads we already have need to be maintained and used for their intended purpose, including forest fire prevention. It makes no sense to build new roads on public land for purposes that do not serve the public when the agency's own findings show that doing so raises fire risk. I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from its own prior findings on fire occurrence and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement. The agency has been down this path before. The record contains the agency's own statement 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." A state-by-state approach was attempted and its deficiencies were identified in prior litigation. The agency should explain how this proposal avoids those same deficiencies and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. If something is not broken, why is the government trying to break it? The agency's own DEIS states: "The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range is cited and then not applied to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. A range that wide, left unanalyzed across the full affected acreage, is not an adequate basis for a decision of this magnitude. The agency must apply that cited fragmentation range to the full 40.1 million acres and disclose the results before finalizing any rescission. On water, the math points in one direction. More than 7,000 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds fed by roadless areas, and the agency's own analysis indicates that roads and their facilities can produce up to 90 percent of the sediment from a timber sale. Fewer than 12 percent of those watersheds have impaired streams today. Water is life, and if these watersheds are polluted, the costs of remediation will far exceed whatever the logging industry stands to gain. It sounds like the public will be spending significantly more money than the logging industry will make. The agency has not presented a credible accounting of those downstream costs, and I ask that it do so. Finally, the agency's own record states: "The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat." No population-level projection for big game or hunter opportunity appears anywhere in the document. The agency should project those effects before proceeding. Sincerely, Emily Dahl Louisville, KY

As a citizen and rightful co-owner of our national forests, I do not want roads being built in forested areas that do not already have roads. I am particularly interested in protecting all forests which are old and undisturbed by logging. I just witnessed the destruction of old forest in Redbird forest, Daniel Boone National Forest. It is a travesty that this forest was decimated. A small pocket of pristine forest is now destroyed by legalese and tarnished flawed methods. Do not change any guidelines that exist now that help prevent new roads being built on our forest land.

I live near in Beattyville and hike around Daniel Boone national forest often and these roadless areas are a big part of why I’m able to enjoy the flora and fauna. They keep our water clean, give wildlife room to move, and offer the kind of quiet backcountry you can't get once roads go in. I understand the concern about wildfire, but the rule already allows thinning and fire work where it's needed. Repealing it entirely goes much further than that, and the agency's own analysis admits that logging and vegetation projects would mean more roads. Thirty days is also not enough time for people to weigh in on something this big. Millions of people spoke up when this rule was created, and most of them wanted it protected. Please keep it in place.

I am writing to proclaim my deep discomfort and opposition to the rescission of the roadless rule. I am an 8th generation south eastern Kentuckian and spend no less than 30 days a year recreating in the Daniel Boone National Forest mostly while hunting. More than that, I spend my vacations visiting National forests in different states every year from Alabama to Montana. There is nothing I wish to change more about our national forests than to remove some of the existing road infrastructure. What is unfathomable to me is the idea that we need more roads in any area of this country. Responsible, sustainable timber management occurs in our working forests all over the country. While I understand short term needs may weigh heavily on us, we need to understand that building a road into a forest is a near-irreversible and permanent decision. We have 4.2 million miles of roads in the US. 380,000 of those miles of roads are already in our national forests. More than enough to reach the moon. Let's remember the vast majority wildfires start within 2 miles of a road. Do not do this. Do not rescind the roadless rule.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I hike and camp in National Forests to enjoy landscapes, bird and wildlife spots, and enjoy solitude, quietness and dark sky. Public lands must be managed for the current and future public good.That means envisioning the value our public lands have for recreation, wildlife survival, climate change control, water quality, and ensuring there are still undeveloped wilderness areas for future generations. I photograph wildlife, landscapes, and waterfalls and rivers. Road development impacts all of those by changing the scenery, impacting wildlife migrations and homes, and decreasing water flow and water clarity. The kids in my life instinctively notice the difference in a roadless area: the tree canopy, the sound of a waterfall or birdsong not competing with traffic noise. We don’t have the right to deprive future generations of undeveloped national forests. I want an explanation of why this proposal has not included multiple public meetings where the public can make their voices heard in person. Water wars are here. Climate change is fueling water scarcity. Development is fueling water quality issues. Watersheds fed by roadless areas are part of protecting our nation's water quality. Explain how roads and logging won't have a negative impact on watersheds and water quality. Hells Canyon NRA, includes some of Wallowa-Whitman NF, and was on my 2026 photography trip. Birds and butterflies abounded, and Snake River ran clear through the canyon. Proud locals bragged about their forest and generations of family trips to the remote areas. Development would impact the recreation industry and the livelihoods of those who depend on it. Birds would leave based on vehicle noise alone. Deschutes National Forest and a stay in Three Sisters Wilderness area this summer didn’t do it justice. Locals bragged about the lava tubes and waterfalls. Roads would destroy its viewscapes and pristine environment, and negatively impact the tourist and recreation economy. I've explored Daniel Boone NF and the Wolfpen area twice (2022, 2025) to photograph different plants and cliffs and rock formations that change color with morning light, and search for the elusive hellbender. Roads and logging would change that. The next generation deserves the right to experience the area as I have: undeveloped and peaceful. My 2026 visit to the Rogue-Umpqua Divide included hiking to waterfalls deep in the forest. This area is a watershed for drinking water for millions. Developing or building roads through this forest will destroy water quality, impact waterfall viewscapes, and impact the "wow" factor of the area including Crater Lake National Park that has viewscapes of the Rogue-Umpqua Divide. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about these inventoried roadless areas: - Wallowa-Whitman NF (515,000 acres), Wallowa-Whitman NF, Oregon - Deschutes National Forest (136,000 acres), Deschutes NF, Oregon - Wolfpen (2,835 acres), Daniel Boone NF, Kentucky - Rogue - Umpqua Divide (6,728 acres), Rogue River NF, Oregon - Three Sisters (7,687 acres), Deschutes NF, Oregon I ask that the agency disclose and analyze the site-specific environmental consequences of the proposed rescission for each of these areas, including the effects of the road construction and timber harvest it would newly allow. I raise the following issues for the record and ask that the agency respond to each of them: Issue 1: The small-business certification contradicts the analysis beside it I hike and camp in these areas, and the small outfitters and guides who work this same country help people like me get out there. They deserve a real assessment. 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. The supporting regulatory flexibility analysis reaches its no-impact conclusion by spreading the $9 million annual expenditure loss across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than assessing the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas, and concedes some firms may lose these receipts. I ask that the agency withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas, not the national average firm. I request that the agency respond in the record to each of the issues raised in this comment, and that it analyze in the DEIS an alternative that retains the 2001 rule's protections for the areas named above. 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.

Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: Roadless country is the reason I go out there at all. Selfishly, there are few places left in our beautiful country where I can freely enter and trust in the ability to live out a mirage in history of traveling back 250 years to the setting through which Daniel Boone, the founding Kentuckian for which this gorgeous forest is named, pioneered his way through this "second paradise" full of abundant wildlife and lands. It is for his spirit that these lands were named, and it is this spirit through which they must continue to be preserved. It is my dream to show my future children this untouched paradise, the only one I have ever known or encountered. Some of my absolute favorite trails to get lost in, Shelotowee Trace, Chimney Top, Lost Branch Trail, Princess Arch, Tower Rock...these are some of the most popular trails in the entire forest...would be interrupted and forever changed. The majority of its magic forever ruined, just like that. And for what? So many of my dear friends who I see every year whose livelihoods are dependent on the continued ruggedness and wilderness of Daniel Boone NF would see dramatic losses. I've met so many travelers from all over, including other countries as far as Canada and Germany and Ukraine, come specifically to Kentucky specifically to explore the Red River Gorge. So famed for its beauty and ruggedness. For the adventures that lie there. That adventure would be completely disrupted once construction begins, whether the construction is for roads, logging, etc. The economic benefits of this temporary construction will come at the permanent cost of economic loss for how many people will view the Wolfpen area as having lost its luster once your roads start coming in, needlessly built for...some silly purpose. Eastern Kentucky is already so run down and economically challenged. Why oh why would you not only destroy what little natural beauty we have left, but one of the biggest economic drivers of that area? Regarding the Wolfpen in the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky, I have attached a PDF detailing my facts and findings. I want the Department to know that there are people — a lot of people — who are watching this decision and who care how it comes out. Warm regards,

See attached file(s) Dear Secretary Rollins and Chief Schultz: Roadless country is the reason I go out there at all. Selfishly, there are few places left in our beautiful country where I can freely enter and trust in the ability to live out a mirage in history of traveling back 250 years to the setting through which Daniel Boone, the founding Kentuckian for which this gorgeous forest is named, pioneered his way through this "second paradise" full of abundant wildlife and lands. It is for his spirit that these lands were named, and it is this spirit through which they must continue to be preserved.Edit personal connection It is my dream to show my future children this untouched paradise, the only one I have ever known or encountered. Some of my absolute favorite trails to get lost in, Shelotowee Trace, Chimney Top, Lost Branch Trail, Princess Arch, Tower Rock...these are some of the most popular trails in the entire forest...would be interrupted and forever changed. The majority of its magic forever ruined, just like that. And for what? So many of my dear friends who I see every year whose livelihoods are dependent on the continued ruggedness and wilderness of Daniel Boone NF would see dramatic losses. I've met so many travelers from all over, including other countries as far as Canada and Germany and Ukraine, come specifically to Kentucky specifically to explore the Red River Gorge. So famed for its beauty and ruggedness. For the adventures that lie there. That adventure would be completely disrupted once construction begins, whether the construction is for roads, logging, etc. The economic benefits of this temporary construction will come at the permanent cost of economic loss for how many people will view the Wolfpen area as having lost its luster once your roads start coming in, needlessly built for...some silly purpose. Eastern Kentucky is already so run down and economically challenged. Why oh why would you not only destroy what little natural beauty we have left, but one of the biggest economic drivers of that area?Edit what you lose Regarding the Wolfpen in the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky, I have attached a PDF detailing my facts and findings. I want the Department to know that there are people — a lot of people — who are watching this decision and who care how it comes out. Warm regards,

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Red River Gorge is my home away from home. I hike, camp, and climb there. I photograph the small things that are easy to overlook but essential to the health of the planet: fungi, mosses, pollinators, wildflowers. I am filing this comment to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Docket FS-2025-0001). Kentucky holds a single inventoried roadless area, the Wolfpen area in Daniel Boone National Forest, totaling 2,835 acres. That is Kentucky's entire roadless inventory. Wolfpen protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The deep sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge shelter over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. The Daniel Boone is also verified habitat for the Indiana bat, Kentucky arrow darter, blackside dace, and northern long-eared bat. These are not abstractions to me. I go there. I look closely. I know that the importance of wilderness cannot be captured with words, cannot be adequately explained by bulleted lists, and should not be decided by people spatially removed from animals and wild ecosystems and temporally removed from the future generations who inherit the messes we make. Before authorizing any destruction of these wild spaces, the decision-makers should pack up a tent and spend a week or two there. Take children and grandchildren. Let them teach what matters. The agency's own findings on wildfire should stop this proposal in its tracks. The 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 proposal justifies rescission partly on wildfire and fuels management grounds, yet the agency's own draft environmental impact statement reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. I ask the agency to explain why the proposal departs from these prior findings and to reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in DEIS Table 21. The economic case for rescission is no case at all. The agency's own record acknowledges: "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's own Cost Benefit Analysis projects $5.2 to $11.4 million a year in timber revenue against recreation losses of at least $6.1 million a year, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, all while the existing road system carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. Using our money, energy, and resources to make the future better and more sustainable is the obligation here, not using our wealth to rob our children. How does the agency justify expanding a road system it cannot afford to maintain, on the basis of an economic analysis that cannot establish a net benefit? The small-business certification that accompanies this proposal contradicts the analysis sitting beside it. 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. That conclusion was reached by spreading losses across every small firm in the sector nationally rather than examining the outfitters and guides actually holding permits in the affected areas. The agency concedes some firms may lose these receipts. The certification should be withdrawn and the impact assessed for the small entities actually operating in the potentially affected roadless areas. The agency has solicited, in its own language, "any reliance interests in the current rule that could be affected by this proposal" (91 FR 53830-31), and the Cost Benefit Analysis weighs none. This comment is one such interest. I have built habits, plans, and choices around the existence of these protected places. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including this one, before it acts. Finally, I’ll add that I’m a mom of three. My kids look at what we are doing to both climate and public lands and they ask me why the grown-ups are making things worse instead of better. How should I answer them? What a thing, to be offered loss as an inheritance: pollution, degradation, extinction. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write this rule. It has held none to undo it. The agency must answer each of these points in the record. Sincerely, Lisa Jensen Nicholasville, KY

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The Daniel Boone National Forest is a treasure that must be protected, and the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule puts it directly at risk. Public land should be preserved for future generations. If not protected, everything will be used up. This is sacred land, and the procedural and analytical failures in the current proposal demand a response. The Wolfpen roadless area, at 2,835 acres, represents Kentucky's entire inventoried roadless inventory, a single area whose headwater streams feed the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The same landscape shelters more than 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats in deep sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. The Daniel Boone also supports the Indiana bat, the Kentucky arrow darter, the blackside dace, and the northern long-eared bat. Rescission here is not an abstraction; it is a decision about this one finite area and every listed species it holds. The agency must explain in plain terms what effects on these species it projects under the proposed action, and it must do so with reference to its own inventory data. The agency's own record undermines the wildfire rationale offered for rescission. 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." The proposal does not reconcile this finding with its conclusion that opening roadless areas to road construction advances fuels management goals. 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 its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The DEIS raises fragmentation and then abandons it. The document states: "The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent." That range is presented and never applied. No projection across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows from it. The agency must apply its own cited fragmentation range to that full acreage before this proposal can be considered analytically complete. The same pattern holds for wildlife. The DEIS states: "The DEIS cites the finding that elk survival rates increased during a road closure and decreased when the gates were removed (Cole 1997), and that elk avoid roads and select unroaded habitat." No population-level consequence for big game is projected anywhere in the document. What does that pattern of avoidance and survival mean at the scale of this action? The agency should project the effects on big game populations and hunter opportunity under each alternative. Carbon storage receives the same treatment. The DEIS states: "The DEIS cites the estimate that these inventoried roadless areas contain about 5 percent of the stored forest carbon in the coterminous United States, roughly 0.9 billion metric tons." The document then concludes these lands will continue to sequester and store carbon, with no analysis of what harvest and roading would change. That conclusion, unsupported by any quantified alternative-by-alternative comparison, is not analysis. The agency must quantify the change in carbon storage and sequestration under each alternative before finalizing any decision. Future generations should not inherit fewer of these places. The Forest Service held more than 600 public meetings and took 1.6 million comments to write the rule. It has held none to undo it. That asymmetry alone warrants scrutiny, and every unresolved analytical gap identified above makes the case for keeping the rule exactly where it stands. Concerned citizen in Kentucky

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins,Comments for RIN 0596-AD66Dear Secretary of Agriculture,As a middle-aged US Citizen, I have long taken pride in the National Forests that our country has protected. I understand that the Roadless Rule has helped to preserve our national treasures for wildlife and for future generations, and I believe that wisdom lies in their continued protection. As a Kentuckian and a supporter of Kentucky Waterways Alliance, I am especially concerned about the impact that elimination of the Roadless Rule would have on our watersheds, particularly the Red River Watershed. The adage that "Water is life" is absolutely true. In this day and age when so many waterways are polluted or affected by climate change, we should prioritize maintaining quality water sources as best we can. I have visited the Daniel Boone National Forest and the Red River Gorge. I recognize that these areas are renowned for their beauty and natural diversity. Kentuckians love to welcome visitors to these remote areas, but, in order to do so, we must preserve the attributes that attract them in the first place.I urge our nation's leaders to direct their money and attention to better maintenance of the roads that we already have. Please act with reverence for the land, for human health, and for the quality of life of the generations that will follow us. Sincerely,Leigh PittengerLeighKentucky

Give me liberty or give me death. If you start building roads in the Wolf Pen area of the Daniel Boone National forest, you may find equipment burned to the ground. Over our dead bodies.

Brush Creek ran through my earliest memories. I practically grew up on that water in southern Ohio, and the forests I keep returning to, Shawnee State Forest, Wayne National Forest, and Daniel Boone National Forest, matter to me dearly. My view of public land management is simple and firm: the health of the ecosystem and the health of our people are inextricably linked. The proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule does not reflect that understanding, and I oppose it. Daniel Boone National Forest contains Kentucky's entire roadless inventory. The Wolfpen roadless area, at 2,835 acres, is the single inventoried roadless area in the state, and it protects headwater streams feeding the Red River, Kentucky's only National Wild and Scenic River. The forest also shelters over 5,000 Virginia big-eared bats in the deep sandstone overhangs of the Red River Gorge, roughly 40 percent of the global population of a federally endangered species. Indiana bats, northern long-eared bats, Kentucky arrow darters, and blackside dace depend on these same lands. Rescinding the national rule would leave this entire inventory, every acre of it, exposed to road construction and the habitat fragmentation that follows. I ask the agency to explain specifically how the proposal protects these species and this singular Kentucky roadless inventory when the rule that currently protects them is gone. On wildfire, 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 proposal nonetheless justifies rescission partly on fuels management grounds. The agency must explain why the proposal departs from this prior finding and reconcile the rescission with the ignition data in its own draft environmental impact statement, which reports far higher fire density on roaded land than inside the affected roadless areas. The economic case is similarly weak. The agency's own record concedes that "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's own cost-benefit analysis 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 and a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million. The road system this proposal would expand already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. The agency cannot establish a net benefit from its own numbers. It should say on the record how this action is justified in light of that gap. The proposal also argues that state-by-state approaches can replace a single national rule. 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." That experiment was already tried. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency's state-by-state replacement and found it wanting. The agency must explain how this proposal avoids the same deficiencies and address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values. Finally, on statutory authority: the courts that reviewed whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's power concluded otherwise. The Tenth Circuit held, in language that speaks for itself: "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." That court further found the rule was within the authority Congress granted under the Organic Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and did not create de facto wilderness. The agency must state clearly what legal basis supports a contrary position now. These forests and that water shaped how I understand the connection between healthy land and healthy people. The record before this agency does not support rescission, and I urge the agency to withdraw the proposal. Sincerely, Jonathan Hunter Reese Manchester, Ohio