Read the comments.

Dear Joshua White, Being able to connect with family and friends surrounded by nature by hiking with my four year old, running on trails, camping with friends is the most powerful thing we do as a community. This year we had the chance to visit the Methow valley and stand in awe together as we took in the beautiful world. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. Cultural sites are peoples homes and connection to who they are, they matter! The animals including fish and birds will have homes and food destroyed, the sacred place we get to experience for small moments will no longer exist. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Protecting land so that it can continue to be a habitat for all creatures! Learning to care for the land. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Karina Saunders

Dear Joshua White, As a Veteran I have relied on nature to help process the trauma from things that I was exposed to in combat. Its incredible to me how well it works just to walk in the wilderness for a day or a few hours. I personally think we could save a lot of lives and money on health insurance if more of us could spend a day per week in the wild. Public lands equal habitat for millions of creatures but also contain fresh air and experiences that no healthcare setting can offer. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. Im most concerned that this will take out natural habitat that has second and third order of effects we arent even prepared for. This seems like a short term profit that will be complete destruction in the long term. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Id like the investment to be in conservation of wildlife and living organisms. Research on the mental health benefits of fresh air and nature preserves. This land should be respected and more intentional thought is necessary before destructing trees that have been growing for hundreds of years. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Emery van Broekhuizen

Dear Joshua White, Hello, I'm a nature lover and have a son who's degree is in Environmental Science and his career is working in various aspects of forestry. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. We need trees for air to breathe. Leave them alone please. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. More forestry management to mitigate fire risks. Over 2 million acres burned in the state of Oregon alone this year. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Lisa Ande

Dear Joshua White, I'm a second generation fisherman who lives in Sitka, Alaska. I've fished and gathered food from Southeast Alaska's rich wild lands my entire life. I also run a seafood company that relies on the fish that the Tongass National Forest nurtures. This place is special for many reasons, but few places offer truly wild and protected areas to harvest foods and to enjoy. It's why my family lives here and it's the foods from here that sustain us. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. I'm concerned that more logging will hurt salmon runs that rely on the cold clean water from our healthy forests. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. I think the Forest Servicd should instead focus on new ways to build trails and cabins to support sustainable tourism in Southeast Alaska specifically. It can also spend more energy repairing already existing damage from logging to salmon streams. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Mesa Skeele

Dear Joshua White, I love to explore the beauty of our outdoors. We have annual family camping trips with friends we met when we became parents in areas like these, like Lake Kachess. Please protect them. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. We want to do everything we can to preserve these lands for as long as possible. Its not optional for the future health of our planet and our families. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Invest in making the areas more accessible for explorations and to educate people on how to leave no trace and interact with our lands with care. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Adrienne Chamberlain

Dear Joshua White, We travel to the Tongass every summer so our children can feel soil beneath their feet that is wild and protected. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. A string connects us all and this not only would affect our rivers then our salmon but our children and our livelihood's, no matter where you reside. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Restoration work and climate change efforts. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Molly Martz

Dear Joshua White, I am a proud Alaskan and a State DOT&PF employee. I value our resources and understand the weight of decision making when it comes to those resources. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. Calling Alaska home means I also get the privilege to experience the last few wild salmon runs on earth. The soil and water provides for us. Food sovereignty is not a leftists, woke, buzz phrase. It is how the human species continues to be human. Our ability to eat and drink freely from the planet that carries us is far more valuable than any monetary, capitalistic gain. While opening land for subsistence is something I can consider, I do NOT condone opening land for extractive purposes. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. I want the Forest Service to invest in regenerative practices. I want our waters to run clean. I want the wild game to be abundant. I want to know that if the current global socio-economic system collapses or becomes so expensive that regular people cannot survive, that we still have natural public resources, free and open to all left over. I want natural abundance secured. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Jordan Campbell

Dear Joshua White, I am Tsimshian and Tlingit and am people of the cedar and saltwater. I raise my children on the land you call the Tongass. My son hunts and fishes for us on these lands and in these waters. My daughter and I pick medicines and foods from the forests. I earn my living as an educator teaching classes and culture camps connected people to the land and our non human plant relatives. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. I grew up in the 80s when logging was rampant. A lot of my friends lived out in lighubg camps and came to town for dental etc. That is not the same economy now and nor will it ever be that again. We need intake full forests with as much old growth as we can leave intake for climate change mitigation. I did my undergrad in environmental science and anthropology and know from 1st hand experience digging up ancient village sites, monitoring culturally modified trees, etc. Every bit of these lands has cultural impact and values either from the past or present or both. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Intake Forests with indigenous access for cultural reasons Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Heather Evoy

Dear Joshua White, The Tongass National Forest has been a leading factor in why I love and live in Alaska! The untouched beauty fills me with wonder and joy. It keeps the fish flowing and the deer running. The Tongass keeps me employed as a worker in the tourist industry much of the draw for tourists is the mystery and wonder of these 9 million acres and the plants and animals it grows and sustains. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. The 9 million acres of the Tongass, much of which is untouched and old growth, is one of the last places in the United States that allows nature to thrive. It is these lands that allow Alaska and the small towns and villages we call home to survive. Tourism hinges on these lands and small communities rely on tourism not to mention the clean water, air, salmon, and deer will be endangered if the Roadless Rule is repealed. History is in these forests and in these old growth trees. Old growth is increasing hard to find in the United States and logging a large portion of this untouched wilderness leads to a country and a people that have completely lost touch with their roots and ancestors. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. The Forest Service can invest in more hiking trails, public cabins accessible by boat or trail, maintaining the many unusable roads and facilities that already exist and hiring more rangers to protect these lands and educate people on how to care for this land. Why add more to pay for and maintain when the agency cannot handle what it already has? Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Shane Gansen

Dear Joshua White, Hello I am Shelby Gansen, I came to Alaska for the first time in 2024. Working a seasonal job. I fell in love with the state. Not only being surrounded by the Tongass but to be able to hike and enjoy the forest made it feel like home. It is quite literally the reason I made the choice to permanently move to Sitka. Being able to encounter untouched old growth has made me feel human again. There is something magical about the Tongass. I feel the history, the calmness as I breathe in the clean air it provides for me. It's a beautiful place that deserves more respect. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. I am most concerned about the ecosystem which thrives in the Tongass. Including us as humans. We need nature to survive . Without, it can bring dangers of low salmon, unclean air, over population, less pollinators, and decomposers. Each has a role in making things work, including us as humans. If we disrupt the flow, our quality of life will go down. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. I want healthy and thriving ecosystem in the Tongass. Where it look like a serene place filled with plenty of flora and fauna doing their jobs. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Shelby Gansen

Dear Joshua White, I've lived in Sitka for 9 years and every day I marvel at the expanse of wilderness around me. Being able to hike through the woods was crucial when I was struggling with bipolar disorder. And I also need the woods for my berry and deer harvest. More than that, the Tongass is a sacred place, one that we are responsible to protect. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded more than 44 million acres of our national forest lands for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economies, and ecosystems that depend on these forests. The Tongass land belongs to all of us, not just those who can make a profit off its destruction. Opening up these 44 million acres will harm our climate, as well as damage deer habitat and salmon runs that myself and others rely on for food. This is what is at stake. National forests are the backbone of life and livelihood for communities across the country. They provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, support fish and wildlife habitat, are home to sacred and cultural sites and offer recreation and tourism opportunities that sustain rural economies. Removing the Roadless Rule would put these benefits at risk. National forests should not be managed on the premise that roadbuilding will reduce wildfire, insects, and disease. Wildfire risk to communities is best addressed by hardening homes and treating fuels in the wildland-urban interface, not by opening remote backcountry. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; they will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience, and new roads increase the risk of human-caused fires Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule would also be fiscally irresponsible. In the proposed rule, the agency itself recognizes that there is a $6.9 billion backlog in road maintenance. Taxpayers have subsidized the Tongass timber program at a rate of over $25 million per year, with individual timber sales like Big Thorne losing roughly ten dollars for every dollar of revenue generated. Why should we pay to subsidize a failing timber industry, at the expense of our tourism and outdoor recreation industries? Flexibility and exceptions are important - and the 2001 Roadless Rule already includes them. Healthy roadless areas look like areas that are supported by humans, not destroyed. Invest in already established cabins, or research to monitor salmon health. Removing the 2001 Roadless Rule is a distraction from the work that needs to be done to support our communities. The USDA is wasting time, money, and staff capacity to remove a popular land management rule, while acknowledging themselves that market conditions, operability, and staff time to do actual work on the ground are limited. This is wasteful spending at its worst. The Forest Service should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the economic impact of removing Roadless protections versus investing in restoration, road and trail maintenance, and recreation infrastructure. If the USDA is actually interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Americans have been saying all along: abandon the proposed repeal and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place on the Tongass National Forest. I support Alternative 1. Hannah Blanke