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