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.

To the U.S. Forest Service: I am writing to express my strong opposition to any efforts to rescind, weaken, or roll back the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As an avid user and advocate for our nation’s public lands, I rely heavily on the integrity and protection of our inventoried roadless areas. I frequently visit the Ocala National Forest and the Everglades National Park near my home in Florida. Protecting these unfragmented landscapes is deeply personal to me because of the generations of my family that have camped, hiked and paddled in our natural areas. I depend on these watersheds for clean drinking water as well. I participate as a volunteer to keep the mangroves free of trash. I urge the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to abandon the proposed rescission and instead maintain full protections for all currently designated inventoried roadless areas. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. Mary Vites

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The forests where I hike are not abstract. I go to Ocala National Forest to see pristine wild landscapes, and when I visit family in California we hike in Sequoia National Forest to breathe clean air. These are not amenities. We live in an ecosystem, and the lands inside it should be preserved for the long-term survival of our children and our nation. The proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule threatens exactly that, and I oppose it. The Ocala sits directly on top of the Floridan Aquifer. Alexander Springs, a first-magnitude spring in the heart of the forest, pumps 80 million gallons of crystal-clear water per day through karst limestone that makes any road construction a direct contamination pathway to the drinking water supply of central Florida. The forest holds 4,855 acres across 2 inventoried roadless areas. Red-cockaded woodpeckers recovered here from 7 breeding pairs to 98 family groups because the longleaf pine stands they need have never been fragmented by roads, and Florida scrub-jays, found nowhere else on the planet, depend on the surrounding scrub. California holds 381 inventoried roadless areas totaling 4,389,760 acres, and across the Pacific Southwest region 1,034 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The scale of what this rescission puts at risk is not speculative; the agency's own inventory makes it legible. On wildfire, the proposal justifies rescission in part on fuels management grounds, yet 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." I ask that the agency explain why this proposal departs from that prior finding, 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. This response is even more timely, given the increased fire frequency driven by climate change induced drought. On economics, the proposal also relies on timber and employment benefits, but the agency's own record states: "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 same record 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, with a net present value spanning -$92 million to +$199 million, while the existing road system already carries a $6.9 billion maintenance backlog. How does an action whose own cost-benefit analysis cannot establish a net benefit justify expanding that backlog? On the state-by-state approach, the proposal argues that local decision-making can substitute for a national rule, yet the record shows the agency itself once stated: "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 agency must address its own prior finding that local decision-making can incrementally erode nationally significant roadless values, and explain how this proposal avoids the deficiencies the Ninth Circuit identified the last time the agency replaced the national rule with a state-by-state approach. Finally, on statutory authority, the proposal questions whether the 2001 rule exceeded the agency's legal power. The reviewing court answered that question: "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 held that the 2001 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 explain, with specificity, the legal basis for any contrary position before proceeding further. Cyrene Schweitzer Plantation, FL

Clean water and wild country are not abstractions to me. I am a cancer survivor, and having clean water is critical to my continued health. The Ocala National Forest feeds my water, and I am asking the Forest Service to keep the protections that make that water trustworthy. I also go out there hoping to see bobcat, bears, and red-cockaded woodpeckers. And I want to know that I did everything I could to give my grandchildren the opportunity to enjoy the last bastion of pristine wildlife. That is why I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The agency's own document states, at Scope of the Analysis, that "An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources will not be made by the rulemaking because none of the rulemaking alternatives propose specific actions." Yet the same document discloses that the rescission is likely to adversely affect hundreds of ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats, and the effects chapters describe permanent road construction and old-growth removal as reasonably foreseeable outcomes. Those are irreversible commitments by any plain reading. The Forest Service must explain, directly and specifically, how those two positions can both be true. The agency also argues, at Rationale for the Proposed Rule, that "The 2001 Roadless Rule limited the Forest Service’s ability to conduct vegetation management within inventoried roadless areas and has contributed to the lack of active management of the national forests, which has contributed to challenges in addressing forest health concerns." But the same document cites research finding that the rule did not meaningfully constrain fuel treatments as a share of forested land, and it notes that insect and disease risk in western roadless areas is similar to or lower than on managed forest land. The forest health rationale cannot rest on a premise the agency's own findings undercut. I want the agency to reconcile that contradiction in its response. Finally, the agency reports that a preliminary biological assessment produced a "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for 327 species and 71 designated critical habitats, as disclosed in the ESA-Listed Species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species section, yet formal Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries has not been completed. A final rule that reshapes management across every inventoried roadless area in the country should not rest on preliminary, unconsulted findings. Complete the consultation, disclose the resulting Biological Opinion, and let the public respond before any rule is finalized.

To the U.S. Department of Agriculture: As an outdoor enthusiast who has traversed roadless country across multiple national forests, I submit these comments in opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a rule whose administrative durability reflects the depth of the public record upon which it rests. Hiking through these areas allow me to feel connected to the natural world. A pristine place of beauty. Regarding the Alexander Springs Creek in the Ocala National Forest, Florida: Population-level impacts of Slight or 1-10% pop. decline severity across Large (31-70%) scope are documented for Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi, G2, T) in the Alexander Springs Creek IRA, Ocala National Forest, driven by 4.1 - Roads & railroads. Roads enable the equipment access, land conversion, and human activity that activate 4.1 - Roads & railroads. Without road infrastructure, the extractive and development pressures behind this threat category cannot reach Eastern Indigo Snake habitat in Alexander Springs Creek. The agency cannot satisfy its analytical obligations with a national-level discussion of roadless values. The DEIS must address 4.1 - Roads & railroads as it affects Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) specifically within the Alexander Springs Creek IRA, Ocala National Forest. "Frequent human disturbance caused by mining development and road construction in the Kalamaili Mountain Ungulate Nature Reserve (KNR) — inhabited by >80% of Chinese khulan (Equus hemionus) — has interfered with or completely blocked their movement and access to parts of the reserve. The habitat of khulan in KNR went from a good natural habitat in 2005 to deterioration due to mining development in 2011. In 2019, road construction likely hindered its recovery to pre-mining levels. Our study revealed the significant impacts that mining development and road construction have had on the distribution of core habitats, ecological corridors, and movement of khulan." — Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect), 2022 “Frequent human disturbance caused by mining development and road construction in the Kalamaili Mountain Ungulate Nature Reserve (KNR) — inhabited by >80% of Chinese khulan (Equus hemionus) — has interfered with or completely blocked their movement and access to parts of the reserve. The habitat of khulan in KNR went from a good natural habitat in 2005 to deterioration due to mining development in 2011. In 2019, road construction likely hindered its recovery to pre-mining levels. Our study revealed the significant impacts that mining development and road construction have had on the distribution of core habitats, ecological corridors, and movement of khulan. — Biological Conservation (ScienceDirect), 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109770)” Keep the forests as they are. Kind regards, CommentID: RLC-20261007-0SN1XH

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

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 Growing up playing in Ocala National Forest shaped what I understand about public land, and what I understand is this: more roads mean less wildlife diversity. The Ocala holds 4,855 acres across 2 inventoried roadless areas where red-cockaded woodpeckers have recovered from 7 breeding pairs to 98 family groups precisely because the longleaf pine stands they depend on have never been fragmented by roads. Florida scrub-jays, found nowhere else on the planet, depend on the surrounding scrub for the same reason. I oppose rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and submit this comment to Docket FS-2025-0001. People need areas to get away from the crowds. Roads mean more houses, which lead to more people, which leads to fewer places left to escape into. That logic holds in the forest as surely as it does on the ground I know from daily life. I live around the I-4 corridor, which is a mess. We keep adding surface roads that overload the Expressway, and it makes no sense. We should be updating and maintaining the roads we have in place. The Forest Service is already billions behind on maintaining what exists, and opening roadless land to new construction compounds the same error I watch play out locally every day. On that point, the DEIS does not hide the fiscal reality. The purpose and need the agency has written is not forest stewardship; it is procedural deregulation. Alternatives with more protection were dismissed as not responsive to the deregulatory executive orders, and the keep-boundaries option was cut because it "would continue to restrict local decision-making discretion" and because analysing roadless values is "an administrative and legal burden for the agency." Eliminating protective options because they conflict with a predetermined deregulatory goal is not the comparative analysis the law requires. I ask that the agency restate the purpose and need in terms of actual forest conditions and analyse at least one fully protective alternative. The wildfire rationale that runs through public discussion of this rule fares no better under scrutiny. The agency's own document states: "The purpose and need is to reduce regulatory burden and return decisionmaking to local officials. Overlap with the wildland-urban interface as defined by HFRA is 9.8 million acres, 24 percent of the affected area, and and the DEIS says the benefits of added fuel-management access 'would likely be modest and localized.'" The agency built a WUI-targeted alternative that could have answered the fire concern without rescinding protections across all affected land, and then rejected it. I ask the agency to explain on the record why nationwide rescission was chosen over that alternative it constructed and then discarded. The Ocala sits directly on top of the Floridan Aquifer. Alexander Springs, a first-magnitude spring in the heart of the forest, pumps 80 million gallons of crystal-clear water per day through karst limestone that makes any road construction a direct contamination pathway to the drinking water supply of central Florida. Florida black bears, gopher tortoises, and eastern indigo snakes live in those same roadless acres. The DEIS cites the finding that "habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent," yet no projection of that range across the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment follows from it. A number placed in a document and then left unapplied is not analysis. The agency must apply the cited fragmentation range to the full extent of the potentially affected environment before this proceeding moves forward. One more point deserves a direct answer. The 2001 rule's exceptions were designed to be used infrequently, and they have been. The agency now treats that outcome as evidence that the rule has failed, in a document that concedes "the rule's intent for infrequent use." A rule working exactly as designed is not a defect. The agency should publish the counts of exception requests, approvals, denials, and processing times so the public can evaluate whether the system was broken or simply inconvenient. The Ocala taught me that what you leave alone is often what survives. I urge the agency to withdraw the proposed rescission and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in full. Sincerely, Charles Cavender [Clermont, FL]

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 I have been traveling to hike and camp with my family for more than 30 years. We've driven from Florida to Wyoming more than once to enjoy a type of nature we don't have: old forests on mountains. We've been to California to see the redwoods, and Utah for the stone formations I love seeing wildlife. Being able to see bears or wolves in their natural habitat is an incredible privilege. Checking off a bird species that you can't see anywhere else from your life list is an unbelievable accomplishment. These are PUBLIC lands and they should be managed for the public. That means not selling them off and not carving out patches for the enrichment of private companies. It means smart management practices that won't increase the probability of fires, which the addition of roads will do, per the government's own study. I am writing in opposition to the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, and specifically about Ocala National Forest (4,855 acres), Ocala National Forest National Forest, Florida. 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: Road sediment is quantified and then set aside I fish these waters, and clean gravel and clear current are what make them fishable. What roads send downstream lands on the fish first, and on me right after. The DEIS: skid roads, trails, log landings and similar disturbances within timber sale areas are the main cause of soil erosion and "can contribute up to 90 percent of the sediment generated by timber sale activity." The number appears in the document; no projection of sediment delivery follows it. I ask that the agency quantify projected sediment delivery to the more than 7,000 municipal intakes downstream of these areas. Issue 2: Twenty-four million people's drinking water is asserted away As an angler I am on this water regularly, and the water I fish is the same water communities drink. What happens in the headwaters reaches all of us downstream. Approximately 24 million people use water originating within the potentially affected roadless areas, through more than 7,000 municipal intakes, and less than 12 percent of these watersheds are currently impaired. The DEIS says forest plans address sources of public drinking water without identifying one enforceable provision. I ask that the agency identify, forest by forest, which plan provisions are equivalent to 36 CFR 294.12 and 294.13 for municipal watersheds. Issue 3: Fragmentation is quantified and not applied Good fishing depends on intact, connected watersheds, not fragments. I fish, and I raise this because the agency quantified fragmentation and then never applied it. The DEIS cites the finding that habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity by 13 to 75 percent. The number appears; no projection across the 40.1 million affected acres follows. I ask that the agency apply the cited fragmentation range to the 40.1 million acres of potentially affected environment. Issue 4: 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. Sincerely, Kellie Chan Chuluota, FL

as longtime leasers of property within the ocala national forest & cabin owners on the land, we are opposed. we see damage done by unauthorized trucks,cars,atvs in areas of the forest adjacent to us that are not & should not be accessible to motor vehicles including damages to forested areas, lakes/ponds/swamps and wildlife areas. yet these vehicles continue to make their own access, damage & pollute the forest, leaving trash & abandoned party paraphernalia, furniture & in one case, a truck driven into & abandoned in a nearby pond. we've seen abandoned homeless camps with piles & piles of trash left behind. we've also reported a fire set by unauthorized campers or hunters whose campfire wasn't extinguished properly & started a multiacre fire necessitating not only marion co fire dept but usfs helicopters lifting water out of our small lake multiple times to dump out fire. this lake level btw is at an all time low despite it being spring fed. please we should be maintaining protections for our remaining national forest lands, the water sources around & within & forest wildlife habitat. thank you for not forwarding this proposed rule.

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.

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 a Florida resident, and I strongly oppose the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Rescinding this rule would remove an important safeguard for some of the Ocala National Forest’s most vulnerable and irreplaceable lands. I am particularly concerned about the roadless areas associated with the Juniper Springs springshed, where road construction, logging, and other development could fragment habitat, disrupt water resources, increase erosion, and make it easier for invasive species and further development to spread. The Ocala National Forest contains extraordinary natural areas that cannot be restored once they are permanently divided by roads or degraded by intensive use. Its sand pine scrub supports the Florida scrub-jay and many other native species, while its wetlands, springs, and watersheds contribute to the health of Florida’s water resources. Protecting these areas is especially important because Florida’s remaining native habitats are already under intense pressure from development, habitat loss, and climate change. The Roadless Rule does not prohibit all necessary management. It provides a prudent baseline of protection while allowing exceptions when road construction or vegetation management is genuinely needed for forest health, wildfire protection, public safety, or other legitimate purposes. Eliminating the rule would instead create unnecessary opportunities for irreversible damage without providing a clear public benefit. I urge the Forest Service to reject this proposal and retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please protect the Ocala National Forest’s roadless lands, including the Juniper Springs springshed, for the springs, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and native scrub ecosystem they sustain. Once these lands are fragmented or degraded, their ecological value may never be recovered. The Forest Service should preserve these protections now rather than wait until the damage is permanent. I am particularly concerned about the portions of the Ocala National Forest that would lose this additional protection, including the roadless lands associated with the Juniper Springs springshed. The Ocala National Forest contains extraordinarily important natural areas that cannot simply be replaced once they are fragmented by roads, logging, or other development. Its sand pine scrub habitat supports the Florida scrub-jay and many other native species, while its wetlands, springs, and watersheds are important to the health of Florida’s water resources. I believe the existing Roadless Rule provides an important additional safeguard while still allowing exceptions when road construction or vegetation management is genuinely necessary for forest health, wildfire protection, or other legitimate purposes. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule rather than eliminate these protections. Please give particular consideration to the ecological importance of the roadless areas in the Ocala National Forest and the protection they provide to springs, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and Florida’s remaining native scrub ecosystem.

Dear Chief, As an outdoor enthusiast in Florida who values our state’s wildlife and wildlife corridors, I know the personal and economic value of preserving wild places. I have seen how development diminishes natural landscapes and the experiences they offer. I oppose rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and urge the Forest Service to retain its protections and select the no-action alternative. The Forest Service identifies approximately 50,000 acres of inventoried roadless lands in Florida. These lands deserve a Florida-specific assessment of what national safeguards would be lost, which protections would remain, and what additional road construction or timber harvesting could become permissible. As a hiker and cyclist who rides the Paisley Woods Bicycle Trail in Ocala National Forest yearly, I know firsthand what it means to have access to remarkable natural places. The forest’s quiet, backcountry character is what brings me back. These visits connect me to Florida’s natural heritage, and I want future generations to have that same opportunity. As the Forest Service is aware, Paisley Woods passes through longleaf pine forests, palm-shaded hammocks, and stretches of the Big Scrub between Alexander Springs and Clearwater Lake. Nearby Alexander Springs is designated an Outstanding Florida Spring. I ask that you identify where inventoried roadless lands overlap or adjoin this landscape; assess potential effects on habitat connections, water resources, and recreation quality; and present these findings to the public, allowing sufficient time for public comment before taking further action to remove Roadless Rule protections in area. Road-related damage is already documented in Ocala. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that roads crossing wet prairies altered their hydrology and enabled unauthorized vehicle use that damaged habitat for striped newts and gopher frogs. Restoration required removing 17 miles of unauthorized trails across four wet prairies, repairing compacted and rutted soils, and blocking access points. FWC reports improvements in water flow, recharge, and habitat quality. Although I am not asserting that those restoration sites lie within inventoried roadless areas, they demonstrate locally relevant risks. Florida’s flat terrain does not eliminate the potential for roads to damage sensitive landscapes. Please evaluate whether expanded road access following rescission could cause similar hydrologic disruption, unauthorized vehicle use, enforcement burdens, and restoration costs. Amid Florida’s extensive development, I value public forests as refuges for native plants and wildlife and places where Floridians can experience their natural heritage. We are proud of that heritage. Protecting it should mean conserving connected landscapes, not merely leaving isolated natural areas or keeping trails technically open. If additional roads or timber harvesting altered the places I visit, I and other recreators would lose more than scenery. We would lose quiet, immersion in nature, and opportunities to experience a relatively intact forest. The national conservation value is also substantial. A 2021 study in Global Ecology and Conservation found that 308 of 537 wildlife species of conservation concern in the contiguous United States (57%) had at least some suitable habitat in inventoried roadless areas. In Ocala National Forest, gopher tortoise, Florida black bear, and other protected species similarly depend on the roadless-area network. While I recognize that rescission would not immediately transfer public ownership of these lands or eliminate congressionally designated wilderness protections, it would remove a national conservation baseline and forest-plan restrictions could change through later amendments or revisions. The public deserves to understand how the removal of the Roadless Rule would affect the distinction of wilderness from non-wilderness roadless lands, along with the opportunity to evaluate and comment upon foreseeable changes to adjoining landscapes. I support responsible forest management and protection of communities from wildfire. The existing rule includes exceptions for specified health and safety needs and qualifying habitat and ecosystem restoration. The public deserves to understand which of these activities cannot proceed under current exceptions, and again, the opportunity to comment upon these findings. Please retain the Roadless Rule and fully account for Florida-specific habitat and watershed risks, recreation reliance interests, enforcement needs, and long-term road and restoration costs. My annual rides in Ocala remind me that these protections preserve real places and experiences people cherish. Florida’s natural heritage belongs to all of us. Please preserve it, and our country’s remaining roadless forests, for future generations. Best, Cherri Buijk Hollywood, Florida

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'm writing to comment in opposition to the USDA's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I'm based in Juneau, Alaska, and regularly recreate within roadless areas here in the Tongass National Forest. In Alaska,, I most often recreate in the following roadless areas: Taku-Snettisham, Juneau-Skagway Icefield, Juneau Urban, and Douglas Island. Additionally, I have recreated on roadless areas in several states including but not limited to: Allegheny National Forest, PA, Monoghaela National Forest in West Virginia, White Mountian National Forest in New Hampshire, Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, Ocala National Forest in Florida, Chattahooche National Forest in South Carolina, Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, Olympic National Forst and Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. When recreating, I often seek out roadless areas and feel that protections for these areas are critical to ensuring future generations can enjoy these lands as I have. I believe the rule is well written, and the language allows for a variety of exemptions (timber harvest, wildfire fighting, roadbuilding, resource access, thinning, etc.). Most importantly, local Forest Service officials already have the authority to review and approve these exemptions. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for wildlife and serve as an important natural protection, helping ensure communities across the country have clean drinking water. Here in Alaska, I’m most concerned with the potential impacts that new subsidized road development for the timber industry would have on salmon habitat. Local economic engines have been designed around roadless areas. Just this summer, I paid a rafting company to raft through a roadless area, and a climbing guide to access a local crag via roadless-area trails. Here in Alaska, over 2 million cruise ship passengers will sail through the inside passage, marveling at our intact forest. Repealing the rule could put this billion-dollar industry at risk. The rule was originally designed to save taxpayers' money and allow the USFS to prioritize the maintenance backlog. Rolling back the rule could result in spending US Taxpayer dollars on road subsidies and a return to a time when the US government subsidized the Timber Industry. I find the "Purpose and Need for Action" for FS-2025-0001-223869 frivolous. I'd like to encourage the USDA to move away from a top-down, DC-driven approach. Roadless Rule protections have been in place for more than two decades; they are working, and the rule is serving the American public well. Again, I oppose the USDA's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I'll continue to raise my voice so my nieces and nephews have the same opportunities I've had to bike, hike, ski, raft in roadless areas. Thanks for your time and consideratio

There is too much habitat loss in Florida already. The Ocala National Forest should be left undisturbed. Evidence suggests that rescinding the roadless rule will increase the risk posed by wildfires, not mitigate it. This rule needs to be rescinded and respect for the environment restored. It is unbelievably greedy and asinine to rescind the roadless rule. Destroying trust in government one ill-advised proposed rule change at a time. It will take an entire generation, if not three generations to recover from the harm of the past two years alone. Rescind this proposed rule immediately.

Roads affect much more land than the relatively small footprint they occupy. They can: Fragment wildlife habitat and create new forest edges. Increase 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. By contrast, roadless areas in our national forests - and on the private lands that surround them - help protect contiguous habitats, extensive wetlands, wildlife corridors, ecological connectivity, and water quality. At a time when habitat outside our public lands continues to disappear, removing protections from some of the least fragmented and least disturbed portions of our national forests moves us in decidedly the wrong direction. Florida’s continuing loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat make remaining intact public lands increasingly important. Approximately 50,000 acres in Florida’s three national forests currently receive protection under the Roadless Rule. USDA should carefully evaluate whether existing forest plans would provide equivalent long-term protection if the national rule is eliminated. The Roadless Rule already contains exceptions for certain necessary activities, including fire management and emergency response. USDA should consider whether these targeted exceptions provide sufficient management flexibility without eliminating the current protections altogether. I visit the Ocala National Forest for hiking and wildlife spotting, including Florida scrub-jays, gopher turtles, bears, and snakes. They're able to live their natural lives without disturbing human areas and becoming a nuisance. Florida is a treasure of biological diversity and protecting that benefits all Americans. We need commerce and resource extraction, but we also need wild spaces that are hard to access in order to maintain our sense of wonder and awe at the beauty that America has when kept in its natural state.

Dear Forest Service, I am a native Floridian and I am writing to support Roadless Area Conservation. I have grown up camping in the Ocala National Forest and visiting Florida's natural areas. We need to conserve land that is still remote, wild and natural. By ending the Roadless Rule you are jeopardizing these lands for our children and grandchildren. A few items to consider when making your decision. Roadless areas in Ocala National Forest help protect the largest sand pine scrub ecosystem in the world, the largest remaining population of the threatened Florida scrub jay and encompass much of the springshed of Alexander Springs – one of the only pristine springs remaining in Florida. The unaltered wetland habitats in Florida’s roadless areas are critically important to species like the flatwoods salamander and others that are very sensitive to hydrologic impacts that result from logging and roadbuilding. The Forest Service’s own research demonstrates road development in natural areas is a significant vector for the introduction of invasive species and that wildfire frequency also increases with road density. Florida’s national forests are home to 136 plant species and 36 animal species designated as either threatened or endangered. Many of these species would be put at even greater risk by expanded logging, mining, and other resource extraction. Please preserve what is left of the Florida I love by opposing the ending of the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Deborah Ferencak