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