Read the comments.

Dear Joshua White, I was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska, in a family shaped by the health and wellbeing of our lands. My childhood memories are full of fishing, hiking, camping, and reveling in the wonder of public lands. I have spent much of my adult life in these same places, and have grown to have a close relationship with the Tongass through my family purchasing and tending to 75 acres of land immediately adjacent to the national forest on Kupreanof Island. It is a deep and precious privilege to be shaped by the places we spend our time together, and to care for them for the rest of my life. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. I have had the experience of living in places across the West coast, and have known what it means to have no connection or proximity to intact and healthy ecosystems. It is an astoundingly precious thing to know what a place is like when it is whole, abundant, and cared for. The Tongass is singular in this regard, and the value of that touches so many dimensions of Alaskan and American life. From the subsistence and recreation driven by the wildlife and fish who call the forest home, to the industries built up around these same resources - sport fishing, guiding and hunting, commercial fishing, and tourism. These industries are sustained in perpetuity, consistently and reliably in a way that few if any other industries in our state are. To consider any action which would disturb or threaten these industries would be a grievous mistake, and one that Alaskans would be left to bear the brunt of. The prospect of building road systems and increased scale of logging would undeniably hurt the exact realities which make this place so valuable. I ask the Forest Service to retain the roadless rule. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. 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. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. If anything, the greatest priority the Forest Service could hold is the restoration, protection, and maintenance of the health of the ecosystems and populations which inhabit the Tongass and other roadless areas within our National Forests. I say so with much gratitude for the work which has already been done, and the hope that this work will continue for 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 interested in prioritizing the needs and interests of local forest users, I urge them to listen to what Southeast Alaskans 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. Jonas Banta

Dear Joshua White, As someone born in Southeast Alaska, and a life-long lover of the outdoors for hunting, fishing, hiking, and just relaxing, the Tongass holds a special place in my heart. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. The current Roadless Rule has helped balance extractive industry needs with the best interests of ordinary Alaskan residents and visitors alike, plus the best interests of the Tongass ecosystem itself. Repealing the rule will cause clear harm to residents, the local economy, and especially the long-term health of the ecosystem. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. 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. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. The Forest Service should retain the Roadless Rule as is, and continue the balanced, science-based management of the Tongass. 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 Southeast Alaskans 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. Martin Jaqua

Dear Joshua White, The Tongass is a special place to me, it is where I spent my formative years becoming an adult. It shaped who I am today- humility from the tall trees and mountains, gratitude for the berries and the salmon, and freshness from the rain, streams and ocean. It is a place of community and of healing. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. When I first traveled to Wrangell Island I was shocked. I hadn't seen the remnants of logging on the Tongass before and it was a stark difference from old growth stands. Honestly, it was ugly, an eye sore. It was not the beautiful Tongass rainforest that we proudly show visitors on cruise ships and through photos. Constructing roads on the Tongass is a waste of tax payer dollars. It's super expensive, as we've seen in the recent road expansion in Sitka. And not practical. The ocean serves as a highway for the Tongass. We do not need more roads in an ecosystem that has other priorities. It will negatively impact the visitor economy by destroying the views of this magical, lush, green place that people come from around the world to experience. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. 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. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. I am proud to share with others that I have lived in Southeast Alaska and advocate for them to visit and experience its beauty. The roadless rule is important to keeping the beauty of the Tongass alive for all to see and experience. The recreation access is incredibly unique and I hope the Forest Service continues to invest in recreation and public use cabins. The salmon and the trees are valuable resources. I hope the Forest Service uses its federal dollars to protect these resources on the Tongass 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 Southeast Alaskans 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. Mary Wood

Dear Joshua White, A 47-year resident of southeast Alaska, I've fished commercially, hunted, and trapped on Chichagof and Baranof Islands as well as the myriad smaller islands that make up this northern archipelago. My family spent their summers fishing with me as well. The 2001 Roadless Rule has safeguarded the world's largest intact temperate rainforest for nearly twenty-five years, and removing it would be a costly, shortsighted decision that fails the people, economy, and ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. Most of the best commercial-grade timber has already been harvested from the Tongass National Forest. My concern now is for the future of this archipelago, both economically and spiritually. The heyday of logging these islands is behind us, and it won't return. Native coho streams are struggling with the legacy of large-scale commercial logging on the Tongass. What's left of the old-growth needs to be left alone, for the sake of the salmon runs. This is what is at stake. The Tongass is the backbone of life and livelihood in Southeast Alaska. It produces the salmon that our subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries depend on. It provides recreation and tourism opportunities that anchor the regions largest private sector industry. It produces our hydropower from abundant rainfall. Roadless forests are critical for our subsistence foods, and subsistence harvesters have repeatedly testified through ANILCA 810 hearings that removing the Roadless Rule will result in reduced subsistence opportunity and productivity. The Tongass is a temperate rainforest that is not subject to the wildfires and the wildland-urban interface issues of national forests down South, and it should not be managed for these issues. Roadbuilding and timber harvest will not reduce insects and disease; it will exacerbate these issues by reducing climate resilience. 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. Roads for hydroelectric projects, mining, telecommunications, and other community needs are allowed 13 of Southeast's 16 hydroelectric projects are located in Roadless areas. Repair of culverts and erosion. 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 Southeast Alaskans 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. Christopher Carroll