FS-2025-0001-575793

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