Read the comments.

Subject: Public Comment Opposing the Rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66 / Docket FS-2025-0001) Hello, I am writing to to oppose the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The DEIS has a deeply flawed claim that road construction is necessary for wildfire management. The proposed action is especially dangerous and harmful to the ecology of Florida’s National Forests. Growing up in Florida, the natural landscapes and wildlife are deeply personal to me. For the entirety of my life, I have spent enjoying the forests that are home to animals like the Florida Scrub Jay, the Florida Panther, and Florida Gray bats, all of whom are dependent on the undisturbed forest canopies to survive. Florida is experiencing the most catastrophic, commercial and residential overdevelopment in its history. I am urging the US Forest Service to protect the 50,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless areas within Florida’s National Forests. The DEIS fails to address the following: 1. Encroachment of Native Habitat and Wildlife: Introducing roads and commercial logging into these forests puts native wildlife and endangered species at risk. Species like the Florida Black Bear and the Gopher tortoise are highly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation from new roads. 2. Increased Risk of Wildfire Areas without roads experience far less fires than areas with human made roads. The DEIS came to the conclusion on page 101, that “as the density of roads increases, so does the probability, number, and frequency of wildfire ignitions.” This statement directly undercuts the argument for repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 3. Threats to Freshwater and Safe Drinking Water for Floridians The Ocala National Forest directly borders and sustains the water quality of the St. John’s River. The creation of roads causes severe runoff and creates pollution that will poison the aquifers. If this is allowed to happen, this will degrade drinking water for millions and cost taxpayers even more money. These roadless areas have irreplaceable wildlife and wilderness. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. The Forest Service must preserve the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Will Patrick Winter Park, Florida 32789

I am writing as a wildland firefighter and concerned citizen to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. As a fire practitioner and a recreationist, I'm concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase opportunities for unplanned human-caused ignitions. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of roads. More roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the Forest Service to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve firefighter safety and ecological resilience, and to fully account for the increased ignition risks and long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, traffic congestion, evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by a tradeoffs analysis of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction, logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about firefighter risk and climate resilience. The Forest Service should not rely solely on future, site-specific project reviews to protect these values. If nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. The DEIS recognizes that additional road construction and timber harvesting could have long-term negative effects on Tribal rights and interests, including impacts to treaty-reserved resources, sacred sites, ancestral trails, and other culturally significant areas. I urge the Forest Service to ensure meaningful government-to-government collaboration and to fully incorporate Tribal knowledge and concerns before any decision is made to remove protections. I am particularly concerned about treaty-reserved resources, cultural landscapes, and sacred sites. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before nationwide protection is removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities.

I am writing as a wildlife biologist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an American, I am concerned that the proposed recission of the Roadless Rule is being pitch as necessary due to the "need to reduce wildfire risk" and that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the ability to protect their values as undeveloped wildlands. The DEIS itself recognizes that increased road construction can provide additional opportunities for wildfire response and fuels management, but it can also increase the possibility for unplanned human-caused ignitions.... 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). More roads mean more fires, not less. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I urge the Forest Service to explain how proposed road construction or vegetation management would demonstrably improve ecological connectivity and reduce wildlife risk, and to fully account for the increased ignition risks and long-term maintenance burdens associated with new roads. The agency should also disclose and analyze the potential for new roads to increase suppression complexity, vehicle hazards, traffic congestion, emergency evacuation challenges, invasive vegetation, and future human-caused wildfire ignitions. Claims that road construction will improve firefighter safety should be supported by a tradeoffs analysis of the specific operational conditions under which new roads may provide a potential safety benefit—but also create new safety risks and hazards during suppression operations. Roadless areas provide some of the largest remaining undeveloped landscapes in the National Forest System. Removing nationwide protections could increase opportunities for road construction and logging, mining, and drilling, with impacts degrading wildlife habitat, connectivity, water, soils, biodiversity, recreation, and other ecological values. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was initially implemented to protect the ecological values of these forests as a connected and biodiverse landscape that local control could not account for. The DEIS acknowledges that more road construction and timber harvest are reasonably foreseeable if the Roadless Rule is rescinded or revised under Alternatives 2 and 3. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat connectivity being affected by the change to the Roadless Rule. There are dozens of species that are impacted by roads. Everyday there already 1 million vertebrate animals killed on roads (Goldfarb). And Forest Service also has tens of thousands of miles that cannot maintain and cause damage to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. We don't need more roads on our public lands. New roads can also increase physical access to areas that have previously remained relatively protected from unauthorized entry, human-caused disturbance, and resource extraction. These consequences should be considered alongside direct impacts to culturally significant places and treaty-reserved resources. Future consultation on individual projects is not an adequate substitute for considering these impacts before a nationwide protection is removed. For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission, ensuring that wildfire policy is grounded in operational reality, ecological integrity, Tribal knowledge and rights, and the long-term safety of firefighters and communities. I urge the Forest Service to retain the current Roadless Rule under Alternative 1 and reject the proposed nationwide rescission under Alternative 2 and any alternative that substantially weakens protections. The DEIS stated purpose of the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. Yet, the original Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements.