Read the comments.

Re: Rescission of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Docket FS-2025-0001 The three National Forests within a day's drive of millions of Floridians are worth more to the people of this state for hunting, camping, and recreation than they could ever be worth for their timber. Florida holds 9 inventoried roadless areas totaling 50,482 acres. Those acres are among the few natural forests remaining in Florida, and the case for opening them to roads and extraction has not been made. The agency's own numbers undercut the economic rationale for this rescission. The record states 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." Those figures describe a marginal contribution to national supply set against recreation losses the agency's own Cost Benefit Analysis books at a minimum of $6.1 million a year, timber revenue projected at only $5.2 to $11.4 million a year to the Forest Service, a net present value spanning from negative $92 million to positive $199 million, and a road maintenance backlog already standing at $6.9 billion. The agency cannot show a clear net benefit from this action using its own numbers. I ask that it reconcile the proposal with that analysis and explain how it justifies expanding a road system already carrying that backlog when the Cost Benefit Analysis cannot establish the action pays. The regulatory flexibility analysis reaches a no-significant-impact conclusion by spreading economic losses across every small firm in the sector nationally, rather than examining the outfitters, guides, and tour operators who actually hold permits in the affected areas and whom the DEIS names as affected parties. The DEIS itself books lost recreation benefit at a minimum of $6.1 million a year and concedes some firms may lose those receipts. "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 contradiction is not resolved by averaging harm away across firms that will never feel it. The agency should withdraw the certification and assess the impact on the small businesses actually operating in or adjacent to the affected roadless areas. In the Southern region, which includes Florida, 378 municipal water intakes sit in watersheds containing affected roadless areas. The people served by those intakes have organized their expectations around the protections the 2001 rule provides. Yet the agency's invitation for comment makes plain that reliance interests have not been weighed. "The proposal solicits '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. When an agency changes course it is required to account for the reliance its prior policy created, and the Cost Benefit Analysis beside this proposal contains no such accounting. The agency must identify and weigh the reliance interests described in the comments it receives, including the interest of communities whose water supply depends on keeping these watersheds intact. The agency's fire data also cuts against rescission rather than for it. "Human-caused ignition density is 22.4 fires per million acres per year on roaded National Forest System land against 3.0 inside the affected roadless areas (DEIS Table 21, 2014-2024), and the DEIS states that human-caused ignitions increase in abundance with proximity to roads." The effects analysis concedes that road access could increase the number and frequency of wildfires. Florida's forests are not abstractions; they are places people use, and a fire regime made worse by new road access imposes costs on recreation and on communities that the proposal does not quantify. The agency must calculate the expected increase in human-caused ignitions from new road access and place that figure in direct comparison with whatever wildfire hazard reduction it claims the rescission would achieve. Sincerely, Susan Carr 1546 SW 35th Place Gainesville, FL 32608

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , I have traveled to 49 of our 50 states and I have seen the spectacular wonders of our great nations NATURAL LANDS. Had these magnificent parks and monuments not been protected long ago, I dare say they wouldn't exist today. There are precious places that deserve and require protection. This is why all governments of the planet have adopted the USA's park model. It works! As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Anita Smith 470 SE 74th Ave Okeechobee, FL 34974-8179 Sincerely, Anita Smith

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Forests are the Earth's lungs - remember that. These ecosystems take decades to grow and mature and once they are gone, they are hard to get back, especially in the face of global climate change. Sincerely, Joanne Fraser 411 Walnut St # 14707 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043-3443 randyjody@gmail.com

Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation, se01nsnn se01nsnn , As someone who cares deeply about national parks and the public lands that sustain them, I urge you to choose the No Action alternative and keep the Roadless Rule in place. For more than two decades, the rule has protected roughly 44.7 million acres of ecologically intact national forest lands, including areas near Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Great Smoky Mountains national parks. These wild places safeguard clean water, provide essential wildlife habitat, support outdoor recreation, and help keep park ecosystems connected and healthy. Rescinding the rule would expose these treasured landscapes to new roads and development, fragmenting habitat, degrading waterways, and putting our parks at risk. Many public lands are already available for timber and energy development. Roadless protections apply to only about 30% of National Forest lands, making these remaining intact areas especially important for future generations. Please do not move forward with this unnecessary rollback. Keep the Roadless Rule in place to protect the forests, wildlife, clean water, and the national parks. Jennifer-Lynn Jankesh 6148 Bobby Jones Ct Palmetto, FL 34221-6626 Sincerely, Ms. Jennifer-Lynn Jankesh

The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is, utilizing Alternative 1 in the current DEIS. I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. Roadless areas provide important benefits to communities across the country, including clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and protection from the impacts of development. These lands are also an important part of the character and identity of many communities and provide places for people to hike, hunt, fish, camp, ski and otherwise enjoy the outdoors. I am particularly concerned that rescinding the Roadless Rule could increase development, reduce recreation opportunities, affect wildlife habitat, increase wildfire risk, or harm local economies that depend on outdoor recreation. The Roadless Rule has provided consistent, nationwide protections for these special places for decades. The Forest Service should not weaken those protections or open currently protected roadless lands to new development. I urge the Forest Service to pursue Alternative 1 and retain the existing Roadless Rule protections. Sincerely, Nolan Jacobs Walker 15687 Pelican Cay Dr Winter Garden, FL 34787-8447 nolanadvocacy@icloud.com

Dear Secretary Rollins, I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to eliminate or weaken the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Rescinding this longstanding protection would threaten some of America’s most intact public lands, waste taxpayer resources, and undermine clean water, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and recreation. As a multigenerational Floridian, I have seen what happens when natural landscapes are fragmented by development. Florida’s experience with habitat loss, declining water quality, and increasing climate pressures has taught me that protecting intact ecosystems before they are damaged is far more effective than trying to restore them afterward. Our national forests belong to Floridians, too, and I have a direct stake in their protection. Roadless forests protect drinking-water supplies, store carbon, provide refuge for threatened and endangered species, and maintain the connected habitat wildlife needs to survive and adapt. Roads fragment habitat, spread invasive species, increase erosion and sedimentation, and bring additional human disturbance into previously intact areas. I am also deeply concerned by claims that eliminating roadless protections is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. Roads bring vehicles, machinery, campfires, and other potential human ignition sources into remote forests. The existing Roadless Rule already allows appropriate actions to address public safety, ecological restoration, and legitimate forest-management needs. There is also no justification for saddling taxpayers with more forest roads requiring construction, maintenance, repair, and eventual restoration. Public lands should be managed for the long-term public interest, not fragmented while taxpayers absorb the costs. Once these landscapes are carved up by roads and development, their roadless character and ecological integrity cannot simply be recreated. I do not support any alternative that rescinds or weakens the Roadless Rule. Please abandon this proposal and protect America's roadless forests for their clean water, wildlife, biodiversity, climate resilience, recreation, and value to future generations. Leave the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Tina Bailey Fort Myers, FL 33905-6820 caloosa1928@gmail.com

Please do NOT eliminate the Roadless Rule. This rule was put in place for many reasons but most importantly it protects clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and offers the scenic landscapes and recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Americans and foreign tourists each year. Budget cuts and layoffs within the NFS already are the true culprits that are damaging our public lands and preventing sound management. The loss of the roadless rule will only increase human caused wildfires, increase invasive plant species and further endanger fragile wildlife habitats and clean water resources. We as a country can not afford to lose these resources. US Citizens who pay taxes to support these lands do not benefit if this rule is eliminated. The only beneficiaries of the elimination of the Roadless Rule are for-profit corporate interests. It is imperative the Roadless Rule stays in place so all Americans and foreign tourists who generate income for our citizens have access to these lands and clean air and water. Thank you, Deana Turnipseed Tampa, FL 33624

Dear U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz, I’m writing to urge you to choose Alternative 1 and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. For 25 years, the rule has safeguarded nearly 45 million acres of backcountry across U.S. national forests. These roadless areas provide numerous benefits to the American public, from clean air and water to vital wildlife habitat and diverse recreation opportunities — all while still allowing responsible forest management. Rescinding or altering this rule puts these lands at risk by opening the door to logging, oil-and-gas drilling, and other development. It will also fragment habitat, introduce invasive species, increase wildfire risk, and bring noise and light pollution. At a minimum, I insist that you extend this comment period to at least 90 days and hold hearings across the U.S. in all areas affected, so the public can fully weigh in. This proposal does not have my support. I urge you to choose no-action and uphold the Roadless Rule. For the sake of those coming after us and for the love of nature and our environment. At some point we have to draw a line which we agree not to cross. A promise to the future. Sincerely, Sarah Gowen 5 Ridge Trl Ormond Beach, FL 32174-4938 gowensg2018@gmail.com