Read the comments.

Allowing more roads and logging in Apalachicola National Forest, Osceola National Forest and Ocala National Forest in Florida would threaten endangered wildlife and plants. With development swallowing more and more land, our conservation areas are a much needed refuge and possibly the only thing standing between endangered species and extinction.

RE: Docket #FS-2025-0001; RIN 0596-AD66 I urge the U.S. Department of Agriculture to keep the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place and withdraw the proposal to rescind it. For 25 years, this rule has protected crucial Florida habitat for more than 130 threatened and endangered plant species and nearly 40 animal species. Rescinding it to allow new roads and logging would do lasting harm. It would fragment the habitat of the Florida scrub jay in the Ocala National Forest. It would pollute the lakes and ponds where the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle lives in the Osceola National Forest. And it would threaten the state's largest population of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the Apalachicola National Forest. These losses could not be undone. Once a road is built, it brings erosion, runoff, invasive species, and human disturbance for decades. Habitat broken into pieces does not recover on any timeline that matters for species already at risk. The existing rule already allows fuel reduction to lower wildfire risk and road access in public safety emergencies. Removing these protections is not needed to manage Florida's forests responsibly. I grew up in Florida, and have seen so much of what makes this state a treasure lost to development. Please leave the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.

Our National Forests are one of America's greatest treasures. The Roadless Rule has been instrumental in protecting the 136 plant species and 36 animal species that are designated as threatened or endangered in Florida's National Forests. Ocala National Forest has the largest sand pine scrub ecosysystem in the world! Roadless areas are helping to protect this important ecosystem and are also the largest remaining population of the threatened Florida scrub jay. Roadless areas also are protecting one of the only pristine springs remaining in Florida, Alexander Springs. Roadless areas are supporting and protecting some of the most beautiful remaining stands of of old growth longleaf pines in the Apalachicola National Forest, along with the largest remaining population of the threatened Red-cockaded woodpecker. These are only a few examples of how critical the Roadless Rule areas are in preserving the unique ecosystems and the beauty of our national forests. Please keep the Roadless Rule in effect! All of our national forests need the extra protection that the rule provides to preserve and protect them now and for future generations!

I am writing to submit a public comment on the Notice of Intent to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I care deeply about our national forests and strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Here where I live in the state of Florida it would be a disaster for our wildlife and the people here, while development continues to close in from every side. Our untouched forestlands in the Ocala, Osceola and Apalachicola National Forests would be opened to logging and more road building. That could fragment the habitat of the Florida scrub jay in Ocala National Forest; it could pollute lakes and ponds that house the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in the Osceola National Forest; and it could threaten the state’s largest populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the Apalachicola National Forest. More broadly, the Forest Service was originally founded to protect forests and watersheds from logging and development. Scientists have since determined that roads fragment the landscape in ways that are even more ecologically harmful than clearcuts. Roadless areas protect habitat for 1,600 at-risk species, safeguard clean drinking water for 60 million Americans, and preserve old-growth forests hundreds of years old. As our Florida springs and other waterways experience reduced water flows and we experience extended periods of extreme drought, I'm especially concerned about actions that would reduce Floridians' access to clean drinking water. On top of that contrary to USDA’s claim that this rescission will help the agency reduce fire risk, more roads are likely to mean more fires. New research shows wildfires are four times more likely to start in roaded areas than in unroaded tracts. In this era of increasing wildfires we need to prioritize strategies that reduce the likelihood of wild fires, not increase it. The Roadless Rule is the most popular rule ever implemented in USDA’s history. When it was first proposed in 2001, the Roadless Rule received 1.6 million public comments—more than any rule in U.S. history at that time. Over 95% of these comments supported keeping roadless protections. For all these reasons I strongly oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. Please protect America’s remaining roadless areas for current and future generations. Laura Oldanie

As a citizen living in close proximity to the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, and one appreciative of the environmental blessings derived from it, I am highly concerned about the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule. There is reason to believe that the Roadless Rule has prevented much harm to the Forest ----harm like additional disturbance of the surface water movement, and introduction of non-native plant species to more and more places. I am a citizen and voter who believes that the rescission would be reckless, and I urge rejection of it.

I am a fourth generation Floridian and a lifetime user, visitor and appreciator of OUR public lands, specifically the Apalachicola National Forest and Ocala National Forest, in addition to many across the country. For 18 years I have been a biologist, botanist, fire ecologist , prescribed fire practitioner, and land manager on public and private lands in Florida. I am acutely aware of the devastating effects that would result from rescinding the Roadless Rule. Above all else, this would negatively impact unique and the delicate ecosystems present in these lands, in Florida and throughout OUR country, which humanity and the rest of the natural world ultimately depend upon for sustained LIFE ON EARTH. Large contiguous national forests and other relatively intact swaths of natural lands are critical for the numerous ecological services they provide including expanses of intact ecosystems which provide for the sustained food web including multitudes of flora and fauna that cannot thrive in fractured habitat and in close or constant proximity to human activity. These lands are also critical for the protection of our precious water resources: surface waters which WE treasure for their scenic beauty, their recreational offerings and their contributions to agriculture and other critical human uses, and fresh groundwater, which is already imperiled in volume and in quality here in Florida. Clean water is an increasingly threatened critical resource upon which human and other life depends. Additionally, rescinding this rule would negatively impact wildfire prevention efforts, forest health, access, grazing activities, and other land management needs. It is our duty as AMERICANS to protect and defend the integrity and security of OUR public lands on which we depend for our own current lives and also our for children’s and grandchildren’s lives looking into the future. Allowing the further degradation and fragmentation of our remaining wild lands is inexcusable and unacceptable. Roads create permanent and likely irreversible damage to these natural areas. Surely rescinding the Roadless Rule will accelerate the journey down the Road to Ruin for OUR PUBLIC LANDS and the future of our precious and critical natural resources. The ROADLESS RULE is an essential measure of protection for these lands which are vulnerable to the whims of administrations, corporate interests and shortsighted misinformation proliferated in this age of “information”. Please do NOT remove this indispensable safeguard.

I am a Florida resident and registered voter in Wakulla County. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). My property is essentially adjacent to the Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) which is near and dear to me. I frequently visit ANF, often on field trips organized by the Sarracenia Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society, to marvel at the many rare and beautiful plants found there. I have organized many educational field trips for local residents and teens across the state to see and learn about Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCWs) and their habitat. Roadless areas in ANF support some of the finest remaining stands of old growth longleaf pine, botanically unique pitcherplant savannas that are extremely sensitive to the slightest changes in hydrology, and the largest remaining population of RCWs. I shudder to think of the damage that will be done to these precious resources if the roadless rule is rescinded. What is to be gained by rescinding the roadless rule? Currently logging and new road development are not entirely prohibited in designated Roadless areas. It simply requires additional assessment to ensure the consideration and protection of sensitive natural resources. Much will be lost and new problems and threats will arise if this rule is rescinded. USFS research has shown that road development in natural areas often leads to the introduction of invasive species -- and that wildfire frequency increases with road density. The latter is especially alarming to me as an ANF neighbor. Please do NOT rescind the roadless rule in the ANF -- or any other of our national forests.

I have been in the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida and consider it one of the treasures of our state. If roads are allowed to slash it up in order to be logged the fragmentation would be a disaster, both there and in the remaining pristine forests. Florida is already in tatters and we have very little left to sustain our environment both for people, the economy and wildlife. Using the excuse of managing wildfires is suspect coming from Republican governors who care only for maintaining their current status as politicians. Please don't rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

This is regarding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I can't believe that we are even considering legislation that would make it possible to build roads in these areas. We live near the Ocala National Forest and have visited it many times in hopes of seeing some of the wildlife that make it thier home. One fervent wish of ours is to see the Florida Scrub Jay, an endagered bird that makes it's home there. We are still hoping that one day we will be able to spot it when we visit there. We are very frightened that this legislation will destroy that dream. We don't live quite as close to the Apalachicola National Forest, but, it is also a place we have visited frequently hoping to see the Red Cokakaded Woodpecker that makes that area it's home. Also another location that would be permenantely destroyed if this proposed rule goes through. We feel deeply attached to both of these Forests and firmly believe that if this new rule is allowed to be voted into place it would be further devistation of areas that need to be protected forever.

I am writing because I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. I live on Florida’s Forgotten Coast, and the Apalachicola National Forest is not some distant piece of public land to me. It is part of the place I call home. I know what these forests mean to the people, plants, and animals that depend on them. Florida is already being eaten up by development. Roads, subdivisions, storage facilities, businesses and all the rest keep moving into what used to be wild land. Every time we lose another piece of intact habitat, the pieces that remain become more important. That is why the idea of opening roadless areas to new roads and logging concerns me so much. A road is never just a road. It cuts through habitat, changes how animals move, brings more human activity into places that have remained relatively wild, and can affect the water and everything connected to it. The Apalachicola National Forest is home to an incredible diversity of life, including species that are already struggling to survive in an increasingly developed Florida. We should be protecting these remaining places, not making it easier to cut them up. I understand that forests have to be managed, and I understand that there are legitimate concerns about wildfire and forest health. But I do not believe that rescinding a protection that has kept roadless areas intact for decades is the answer. There are some places that are valuable simply because they are still wild. I want my grandchildren to know what that feels like. I want them to walk through a Florida forest and hear the birds, see native plants growing where they belong, find tracks in the sand, and know that not every beautiful place has been turned into something else. We have already developed so much of Florida. Please do not sacrifice the remaining intact places because they are harder to reach. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and protect Florida’s remaining roadless national forest lands.

I am writing to strongly urge you not to rescind the crucial protections provided by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Florida has more than enough strip malls, storage facilities, condominiums, and car washes to last ten lifetimes. What we desperately need is not more development, but places where development has not yet taken hold—places where land can remain wild, undisturbed, and protected. These roadless areas are more than vacant land. They are sanctuaries for wildlife and places of refuge, solitude, and sanity for people living in an increasingly crowded and developed world. Once these places are fragmented or paved over, they cannot simply be restored. In the Apalachicola National Forest, allowing development that could pollute lakes and ponds and threaten one of Florida’s largest populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers would be reckless and profoundly inconsistent with responsible stewardship. We have an obligation to consider not only what can be developed today, but what we are leaving behind for generations who will have no opportunity to reclaim what we destroy. Please do not sacrifice irreplaceable public lands simply to increase short-term profits for developers. Government should not facilitate the conversion of our remaining wild places into another round of commercial and residential development. These lands are not ours to take. They are ours to protect. Please preserve the protections of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

The U.S. Forest Service is attempting to rescind the 25-year-old conservation National Forest Roadless Rule in its entirety, removing protections from nearly 45 million acres of wild, unfragmented forest lands across 37 states. In Florida, eliminating this rule would threaten protected lands in the Ocala National Forest, Osceola National Forest, and Apalachicola National Forest that are critically important for the protection of valuable fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, drinking water, and recreational opportunities. There are ZERO benefits --except to helping private businesses access and profit off our public lands-- and 45 million benefits to keeping the rule in place. Do NOT change this regulation. Keep the protection in place.

I am opposed to rescinding the rules protecting Florida's national forests by the proposed rollback of protections from the Trump administration, further imperiling wildlife and plants already squeezed by overdevelopment. I live very near the Apalachicola National Forest and value its' contributions to the environment of the area.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule. I am a biologist who has dedicated my career to conserving threatened and endangered and imperiled species, many of which are dependent upon healthy, intact forests. I am a member of many environmental organizations (e.g., the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice) because protection of the environment is extremely important to me. The Roadless Rule is one of the most important safeguards we have to protect our national forests from corporate development. In Florida, more than 50,000 acres in three national forests are included in the federal roadless-area inventory. My family and friends enjoy spending time in Apalachicola National Forest, Ocala National Forest, and Osceola National Forest. We use the forests for passive recreation, mainly camping and to observe wildlife. We do not want to see the forests further degraded by additional logging and needless openings for disturbances. There are already plenty of roads in Florida's forests, and national forests in general. Roads affect much more land than the relatively small footprint they occupy. More roads can: fragment wildlife habitat and create new forest edges; increase unnecessary vehicle access and human disturbance in previously remote areas; alter natural drainage patterns; increase runoff, erosion, and impacts on water quality; provide pathways for invasive plants and other nonnative species to spread; disrupt wildlife movement and ecological connectivity. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the door to road-building, logging, and industrial development, jeopardizing our nation’s most treasured old-growth forests and threatening the health and safety of communities across the country. It is not necessary. It is short-sighted and wasteful. We cannot risk losing the protections that the Roadless Rule offers. Please help keep our forests, climate, and communities safe — do not repeal the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Paula Halupa

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule. I am a biologist who has dedicated my career to conserving threatened, endangered, and imperiled species, many of which are dependent upon healthy, intact forests. I am a member of many environmental organizations (e.g., the League of Conservation Voters, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Earthjustice) because protecting the environment is important to me. The Roadless Rule is one of the most important safeguards we have to protect our national forests from corporate development. In Florida, more than 50,000 acres in three national forests are included in the federal roadless-area inventory. My family and friends enjoy spending time in Apalachicola National Forest, Ocala National Forest, and Osceola National Forest. We use the forests for passive recreation, mainly camping and to observe wildlife. We do not want to see the forests degraded by additional logging and needless openings for disturbances. There are already plenty of roads in Florida's forests, and national forests in general. Of the approximately 1.2 million acres of national forest land in Florida, about half - 500,000 to 600,000 acres - are already open to logging or timber harvest in some form. More than 500,000 acres of Florida's national forests are also wetlands. There is absolutely no need to open up more areas of forest to unnecessary roads - in Florida or anywhere else. Roads affect much more land than the relatively small footprint they occupy. More roads can: fragment wildlife habitat and create new forest edges; increase unnecessary vehicle access and human disturbance in previously remote areas; alter natural drainage patterns; increase runoff, erosion, and impacts on water quality; provide pathways for invasive plants and other nonnative species to spread; disrupt wildlife movement and ecological connectivity. Florida’s continuing loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat make remaining intact public lands increasingly important. There are 36 federally threatened or endangered animal species that live in Florida's national forests (Apalachicola, Ocala, and Osceola). Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open the door to road-building, logging, and industrial development, jeopardizing our nation’s most treasured old-growth forests and threatening the health and safety of communities across the country. It would destroy and degrade important wildlife habitat, especially for forest-dependent species. We cannot risk losing these protections. Help keep our forests, climate, and communities safe — do not repeal the Roadless Rule. Thank you.

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge the Department to keep these protections in place for Florida's national forests and for roadless areas nationwide. Florida's roadless areas are small, about 50,000 acres across the Apalachicola, Ocala, and Osceola National Forests, and that is exactly why they matter. Southwest Florida, where I live and work, is losing wildlife habitat to development every year. Across the state, intact public land is becoming the last refuge for species with nowhere else to go. Florida's national forests support more than 130 threatened and endangered plant species and nearly 40 listed animal species. Some of those populations exist nowhere else. The risks are specific. New roads and logging in the Ocala National Forest would fragment habitat for the Florida scrub jay, a species found only in Florida. In the Osceola National Forest, road construction and timber harvest would increase runoff into the lakes and ponds that support the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The Apalachicola National Forest holds the largest red-cockaded woodpecker population in the state, and that population depends on mature, undisturbed pine forest. Roads don't only remove habitat. They cut what remains into pieces, bring in vehicle traffic that kills wildlife, and open the way for invasive species, illegal dumping, and poaching. I understand that the Department has framed this rescission as a wildfire safety measure. That reasoning does not fit Florida. Our fire-adapted pine forests are managed largely through prescribed burning, which does not require new permanent roads. The 2001 rule also already allows road construction when needed to protect public health and safety from fire, flood, or other catastrophic events. It also allows some tree cutting to restore natural fire regimes. In addition, new roads can increase human-caused ignitions, and they add to a Forest Service road maintenance backlog that is already far beyond what the agency can fund. Once a road is built and a forest is logged, the intact habitat it replaced cannot be recovered on any timescale that matters to a declining species. A national rule that has protected these lands for 25 years should not be discarded in exchange for short-term timber access. I respectfully ask the Department to withdraw this proposal and retain the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.

I am writing as a Florida resident to register my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping these protections threatens to open roughly 50,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) across Florida’s three national forests—Apalachicola, Osceola, and Ocala—to destructive road construction and commercial timber harvesting. Florida’s landscape is experiencing unprecedented population growth and rapid private land development. In this environment, our national forests serve as irreplaceable ecological refuges. Carving new roadways through these contiguous forest blocks causes irreversible habitat fragmentation, alters delicate hydrology, and introduces invasive species. Rescinding the Roadless Rule poses direct threats to Florida’s public lands: Apalachicola National Forest: Harboring approximately 25,000 acres of roadless forest, this land supports Florida's largest population of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. These birds depend on undisturbed old-growth longleaf pine savannas that commercial timber sales and heavy equipment traffic severely compromise. Ocala National Forest: Road construction through roadless scrub disrupts the federally threatened Florida scrub-jay, a species entirely endemic to Florida that requires unfragmented scrub oak habitat. Roads also bring high-speed vehicle traffic, causing direct wildlife mortality. Osceola National Forest: Industrial timber cutting and road runoff degrade water quality in wetlands, streams, and ponds essential to vulnerable aquatic species, including the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Flora and Biodiversity: Statewide, Florida’s national forests shelter more than 130 threatened or endangered plant species and nearly 40 protected animal species that cannot withstand industrial forest disruption. The Forest Service's claim that roadless protections prevent effective fire and forest management does not hold in Florida. Federal and state agencies routinely conduct successful prescribed burns and ecological restoration in these ecosystems without needing new commercial logging roads. Roadless areas protect our drinking water recharge zones, safeguard biodiversity, and provide open spaces that cannot be replaced once paved or cleared. I urge the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rollback entirely and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full.

Please retain protections for Florida’s national forests. I oppose the proposed rollback of the Roadless Rule and urge you to retain these protections for Florida’s national forests, including the Apalachicola National Forest near my home in Wakulla County. Opening protected areas to additional logging and road construction puts wildlife habitat, water quality, and the natural character of these public lands at risk. These forests belong to all of us and should be preserved for future generations. Please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sue Damon Wakulla County, Florida

As a 42-year resident of Florida, and a hiker/backpacker for nearly 60 years, I am opposed to lifting any of the restrictions currently in place for Roadless Area Conversation in Florida's national forests. My family and friends and I have enjoyed trekking through these precious few areas of wilderness in the Sunshine State for many decades, from the Keys and the Everglades in the south, to Ocala National Forest and others in the state's central region, to Apalachicola National Forest in the Panhandle. Florida is one of the fastest-growing states in the nation, in terms of population and development, and so it needs to do everything it (and the federal government)) can do to preserve the wilderness that still exists, for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Our birding areas alone attract as many tourists as they do residents. These roadless wilderness areas are a precious resource for our state and its citizens.

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing as a Florida resident to register my strong opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping these protections threatens to open roughly 50,000 acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) across Florida’s three national forests—Apalachicola, Osceola, and Ocala—to destructive road construction and commercial timber harvesting. Florida’s landscape is experiencing unprecedented population growth and rapid private land development. In this environment, our national forests serve as irreplaceable ecological refuges. Carving new roadways through these contiguous forest blocks causes irreversible habitat fragmentation, alters delicate hydrology, and introduces invasive species. Rescinding the Roadless Rule poses direct threats to Florida’s public lands: Apalachicola National Forest: Harboring approximately 25,000 acres of roadless forest, this land supports Florida's largest population of the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. These birds depend on undisturbed old-growth longleaf pine savannas that commercial timber sales and heavy equipment traffic severely compromise. Ocala National Forest: Road construction through roadless scrub disrupts the federally threatened Florida scrub-jay, a species entirely endemic to Florida that requires unfragmented scrub oak habitat. Roads also bring high-speed vehicle traffic, causing direct wildlife mortality. Osceola National Forest: Industrial timber cutting and road runoff degrade water quality in wetlands, streams, and ponds essential to vulnerable aquatic species, including the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Flora and Biodiversity: Statewide, Florida’s national forests shelter more than 130 threatened or endangered plant species and nearly 40 protected animal species that cannot withstand industrial forest disruption. The Forest Service's claim that roadless protections prevent effective fire and forest management does not hold in Florida. Federal and state agencies routinely conduct successful prescribed burns and ecological restoration in these ecosystems without needing new commercial logging roads. Roadless areas protect our drinking water recharge zones, safeguard biodiversity, and provide open spaces that cannot be replaced once paved or cleared. I urge the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw this proposed rollback entirely and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Sincerely, Kathryn Henderson