“Dear Joshua White, My name is Cathryn and I live in Sitka. So much of my life and livelihood revolves around…”

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