Read the comments.

Dear Joshua White, My name is Cathryn and I live in Sitka. So much of my life and livelihood revolves around these lands and waters. I commercial fish, harvest subsistence berries, hunt for deer, all in the Tongass. 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. 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 first service to keep the roadless rule! 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. Cathryn Klusmeier

Dear Joshua White, My name is [Ryan Longbrake], and I'm writing from Ohio, where I fish every chance I get. Healthy fisheries start in healthy, intact forests salmon streams and clean headwaters don't happen by accident. The Roadless Rule protects the streams that salmon run on and the wild country that supports hunting, fishing, and the way of life for millions of us who live for time outside. Opening 9 million acres of the Tongass and another 44 million acres of roadless national forest to new roads and industrial logging would trade away something that took thousands of years to build and can never be rebuilt. The roads don't pay for themselves, and the fish and game pay the price in silt and lost habitat. Please keep the Roadless Rule intact for the people who use these places, the wildlife that depends on them, and the generations of anglers and hunters coming after me. 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. Climate damage 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. Education 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. Ryan Longbrake

Dear Joshua White, Hi, my name is brooklyn lindsey-taylor. i dont have a personal connection to this land specifically but I wanted to take the time to share that I believe the roadless rule should be upheld and that our forest are worth protecting even if i havent personally interacted with the life within this ecosystem. 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 worried about the loss of ancestral knowledge and kinship for Indigenous Nations that have traveled through these lands for centuries. I am also worried about climate change, in a time with a drastically changing climate one of the most important tasks we can take on is stewarding the forest that have been growing for decades. 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. Habitat restoration and ecological research to support wolf and bear populations!!! 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. Brooklyn Lindseytaylor

Dear Joshua White, After joining the United States coast guard I got stationed in Cordova Alaska. There I saw how beautiful the natural world can be when it's not pummeled by people. If those parts of the United States of America are not worth preserving none of it is. 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 roadless rule provides habitat for hunting and fishing taking that away is not what anyone voted for. 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. Killing invasive species like the Himalayan black berry that destroy habitat and limit access to the outdoors. 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. Silas Wortmann

Dear Joshua White, My closest roadless areas are in the beautiful north Georgia mountains in the southern reaches of the Appalachians. The colors, smells, old growth forests, and wildlife have connected me to nature from some of the youngest ages I can remember. These wild places are crucial to our delicate balance of our ecosystem and need to be 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. Allowing new development and harvesting into these protected areas would bring significant stress to already dwindling populations of native wildlife and plants. Some of these wildlife and plants can only exists in these areas, and increased encroachment of development and the noise that comes along with it will drive these native species out. But where will they go if not their home? What is left for them outside of these wild places? 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. Please invest more in conserving and protecting the resources we do have left. Please invest more in education at every level - from children to university level to corporate trainings. Everyone needs to know that humans are just one part of this delicate balance we call earth and the impact on our environment t. 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. Anna Hendrickson

Dear Joshua White, My name is Jessica Fuller. I am descendant of the Oglala Sioux tribe. The Olympic National Forest at Kalaloch Beach has been our family's gathering place for the last 70 years. My Grandfather helped to build the original campground. My earliest memories of beachcombing are with him and my Grandmother 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. My largest concern is the contamination and destruction of our public lands..I do not want to lose our sacres spaces. 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 conservation and restoration. 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. Jessica Fuller

Dear Joshua White, I visited the Tongass rainforest for the first time merely weeks ago. It was one of the most magical and reflective pieces of land I have ever had the privilege of visiting. My best friend is a native resident of Sitka. He and his is family has amassed a treasure of knowledge that I was able to learn so much from, and I built a beautiful understanding of what it meant to admire and respect the Tongass region. 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 was lucky enough to witness a thriving salmon run for the first time in my life. It was mesmerizing and beautiful to see a flourishing world renown piece of the Tongass ecosystem right at my feet. The increase of logging would completely destroy the habitat that houses this vital component of the Tongass region. 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 outdoors dont necessitate roads. In fact they oppose each other. Keep the Tongass safe by keeping it preserved. The Forest Service should instead prioritize litter-free forests and offer ways for underserved communities to learn from the region. 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. Jasmine Welaye

Dear Joshua White, I have seen how nature heals, and we owe the experience of it it to those who have not yet walked this earth. 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. My son is differently-abled. When he was younger and unable to speak, I would take him to the national parks and trails in my area , because that is where he always was calm. As he has grown, we continue and take others, no matter their level of ability. Nature matters. It centers us. 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. Investing in equal access to nature brings support for the outdoors and an understanding of the crucial role nature plays in our lives - and our role in protecting it. Equal access to trails and programs for those who typically are left out of the conversation. 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. Maria Brown

Dear Joshua White, I used to live in northern Minnesota and got to spend time in the Boundary Waters, a beautiful space that has been kept pristine for Americans to enjoy by not having roads built across it. There are countless areas like this across the US that should not be cut up by roads. 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. Opening spaces to roads and industry will destroy habitats, ultimately wreaking havoc on communities and the environment and its a decision that we and our Earth can never recover from. 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 should not do this. Concentrate on current land and keeping it healthy. 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. Elizabeth Switek

Dear Joshua White, I have lived in Southeast Alaska for 40 years and forage for berries, commercially troll for salmon, I have raised my kids running on muskegs and swimming in the ocean. 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 worried about salmon and the food and livelihood they provide. We count on stream wirh forest to ensure these salmon return for generations. 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. They look like intact trees that are selectively harvested. Tourism that does not pollute. 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. Amy Rowe Danielson

Dear Joshua White, I am a fourth generation Sitkan that has been raised in and on the surrounding roadless areas. I am not at peace unless I am in these places. I want to share them with my children, I want my children to grow up learning how to live off this same land that as nourished me for 35 years and my family for almost a century. 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 our home being ruined by the roadless rule being lifted. Our food and way of lives will change dramatically and I dont think for the better. 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 are full of wildlife and beauty. 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. Michaela Coleman

Dear Joshua White, My name is Jenny Jacobs and I'm writing to defend the roadless rule. We cannot replace our wild places once they have been destroyed by roads and development. My family and I spend many weekends every year for creating in the great outdoors that we are lucky to live near. 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 cannot replace these precious wilderness areas once they have been impacted. The wildlife has less and less undisturbed territory. 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. Please use forest service resources to preserve forests and wild spaces for future generations 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. Jenny Jacobs

Dear Joshua White, Hi, my name is Victoria. I am a mother of two. Id like these areas to remain intact for the next generation. Tech is simply out of control and we dont need half of it. Once we let corporations break ground it will never be the same land again. Soil disruption causes noxious invasive plants to grow. An ecosystem will be destroyed and its just impossible to hit the rewind button on all of it. Why cant they use land and buildings that have already been industrialized? We have plenty of that around our cities and suburban communities. Why destroy one of a kind land? For what? Profit? We cant be buried with money. 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. Everything concerns me about that. Its unnecessary and will ruin everything good about our United States of America. 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. They should invest in education. Programs to inform the next generations on how to honor and protect priceless ecosystems. We need to leave no trace when visiting these areas. 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. Victoria Rosenberger

Dear Joshua White, The lands that are colonially known as Utah and Alaska hold a big place in my heart. The experiences I have had with the backdrops of these landscapes, watching the sunset over winter solstice skies in Bears Ears National Monument, running through the old growth forest in Sitka as the sun pours through the trees, has shaped the connections I hold to these places. 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. These landscapes have shaped collective memories, cultures, and life ways for much longer than I have held these meaningful experiences. They are part of the land and all the beings that constitute it. 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 land return and sovereign decision making for the nations that have stewarded and lived with these landscapes for much longer than a federal US policy has been in existence. The people who live in these places should be the ones making decisions about what these lands look like, and that decision making authority should come from the first peoples of these places. 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. Erin OFarrell

Dear Joshua White, My name is Erin. I was born, cradled and shaped by the wilds of Alaska. Homer is my hometown, and though I dont currently live there, it is the core of who I am. My family has a cabin near the head of Kachemak Bay; it is completely inaccessible by roads. Since childhood I have visited by float plane or boat; we show up on the beach and the buzz of civilization washes away with the gentle lapping of the tide. The roots of this land weave through my life - as a child I spent weeks with my grandma, making smores and feeding blue jays. As a teenager, I spent afternoons reading on the porch, dappled sunlight coming through the spruce. As an adult, I married my love on the beach, surrounded by family and friends and the land that has held me. As a mother, I bring my children back every summer so they can become a part of the land. My family is buried there. I visit with my ancestors. I feel the past and I dream of the future. 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 land in Alaska is sacred. It is a wild and magical space that exists despite and in companion with the humans who call Alaska home. Once destroyed, it will be impossible to return to the unique majesty of the Alaskan wilderness. Natural resources are not commodities - they are irreplaceable. Opening 44 million acres to increase road building and old-growth logging is absolutely not worth the sacrifice of the wilderness and magic of untouched spaces. So much of our lives are plugged in and turned on. 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. Safe access to wilderness areas, trails, forest service cabins, and staff to support access. I would love to see money invested in preservation and increasing natural spaces, rather than ravaging them for short term capital gains. 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. Erin Rosenberg

Dear Joshua White, I was born and raised in the Tongass - in Sitka and at my familys remote cabin in the summers; running around playing make believe amongst the old growth spruce and wild strawberry fields along the beaches. My life and work have taken me all across this incredible archipelago of islands and mountains and it is truly one of the last large areas that allows for full natural ecosystem functions. Having large healthy natural ecosystems with limited human disturbance is critical for sustained life on this planet. The Tongass provides so much - from salmon to venison and berries and other subsistence foods to amazing recreation opportunities and life changing trips for visitors seeing their first humpback whales and sea otters. The old growth forests in the Tongass are also an incredibly important carbon sink and are thus globally significant to remain standing as we battle climate change. 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 concerned for the impacts this would have to subsistence resources with food at grocery stores being increasingly expensive for many communities in the Tongass with global wars and oil prices increasing making the food that is barged here cost more. I am also concerned about the impacts that logging more old growth would have on accelerating climate change if that stored carbon in the old growth trees was unearthed and released into our atmosphere. 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 the people that live here and rely on the Tongass, and those that come here to see its natural beauty, not clear cut slopes. Please do not side with anyone pressuring you to remove Roadless for the Tongass that has never been here because they do not know what is best for the communities, economies, and environment of this region of the globe. We have spoken up over and over again year after year with overwhelming support for keeping the Roadless Rule on the Tongass. I urge the Forest Service to do what is right and best for people and our planet. 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. Lione Clare

Dear Joshua White, My name is Adrienne Wilber, I am a lifelong Alaskan from a commercial fishing family. 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. Local people want roadless intact. We depend on the healthy forest ecosystem for our livelyhood and recreation. Why the fuck would I want my taxpayer dollars subsidizing timber companies to ruin the place that I am from? 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 Tongass is worth more standing. For our salmon, out deer, out wild edibles and medicines and for it's own wild beautiful sake. 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 Wilber

Dear Joshua White, The tongass national rainforest is where I found peace, home, community, freedom and strength. 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. There are so few untouched parcels of nature left, the tongass serves as just that and so much more. It is the livelihood of the native communities, it is the clean air we breathe, it is habitat for both flora and fauna. It is our home. 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. Roadless areas contribute to the physical and mental health of nearby communities. We should invest in protection of this land, including sustainable fishing/hunting practices, accessible outdoor recreation, community investment. 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 English

Dear Joshua White, I live and play in the Pacific Northwest and I love the wilderness areas that are protected and flourishing in the area. One of my favorite areas is in North Idaho in the Shoshone Range. For the past 25 years I have spent a week there every summer and it is my happy place, the mountains, rivers, creeks and looking out at solid pine trees for as far as the eye can see is such a blessing. The clear river full of fish and the elk herd that roams through the meadow as well as the moose and deer that are always in the area are priceless and I wish everyone had a chance to see such things even once in their lifetime. The Roadless Rule helps protect these special areas for human enjoyment and safe animal habitat. 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 worry about the potential habitat destruction resulting from logging and roadbuilding. Old-growth forests are essential for the survival of the northern goshawks, northern spotted owl and other wildlife. I worry about biodiversity loss, which is happening all over this beautiful land and the Roadless Rule is helping to preserve that biodiversity. I also worry about ecological integrity, the overall health of the forest ecosystem that could be compromised, affecting not only wildlife but also the forest's ability to provide clean air and water. These lands are protected for a reason and ruining them for a little bit of resources is not healthy for the rest of our country. 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 should be investing in active forest management practices, wildfire risk reduction, forest health maintenance and ecosystem integrity. Healthy roadless areas are supporting the local wildlife and promoting healthy ecosystems. 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. Jennifer Stolz

Dear Joshua White, Hello, my name is Cole Burk and Ive grown up in the Pierce County area around the Mt. Rainier watershed. While I understand the need for certain services, this repeal would leave areas that Ive gone to north of Tahoma vulnerable. 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. While I may be impacted directly, theres so much land throughout that cascades that need continued protection from continuous development before we cant go back. 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 should be invested in maintaining protections rather than dismantling them. It creates distrust in the public over their ability to follow through if protections are simply repealed depending on the administration in charge. 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. Cole Burk