Read the comments.

Bill Tremblay P.O. Box 662 Petersburg, AK 99833 907-772-4461 To whom it may concern; I support the protections of the Roadless Rule. I was a Forest Service employee on the Tongass National Forest when the Roadless Rule was put in place during the Clinton Administration. I opposed the Roadless Rule for the Tongass NF initially because the Tongass had just completed a revision of its Forest Plan and I thought that plan had sufficient Standards and Guidelines to adequate protect the forest resources. I had actually started with initial scoping for the revision of the Forest Plan in 1988 and it took many years, the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and negotiations with the State of Alaska to produce a final product. When the Roadless Rule was put in place, the Alaska Governor wrote President Clinton directly to say the implementation of the Roadless Rule was a "stab in the back"; which I agreed with. However, I now think the rollback of the Roadless Rule protections is wrong as the Trump Administration does not have the best interests for the protection of our national resources in mind. There are several connected actions that lead me to approving keeping the Roadless Rule in place. First, was the acknowledgement that lifting the Roadless Rule restrictions will likely have an effect on the availability for subsistence resources. The protection of subsistence resources isn't a discretionary decision. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) clearly establishes these protections as being important to persons who live in rural communities in Alaska. As the Trump Administration takes actions that drive up costs for transportation, services, or products, the reliance on subsistence resources to sustain communities become more important not less. An Alaskan native saying is; "when the tide is out, the table is set". While this is true for persons who have lived here for generations, it's also true for rural residents who rely on resources in the saltwater and on the lands that provide habitat for birds, mammals, and plants that sustain our communities over time. If you look at maps, you'll realize that persons in southeast Alaska live in locations that rely on air or water transportation to receive services. There are no roads connecting our communities to the mainland (Canada) or to other states. Because of this, there is a heavy reliance on local resources. Proposed roads to the mainland have been planned for longer than the four decades I've lived here. However, the costs and difficulty of the terrain makes any road a task that will likely never be funded. Such as it is, protecting our subsistence resources for rural residents shouldn't be a second thought in this decision, it should be a priority. Other reasons for supporting the continuation of the Roadless Rule are based on connected actions. While the instructions note that one should specifically address the Roadless Rule, I can't ignore the connected actions proposed by the Trump Administration that are likely to make the relaxation of the Roadless Rule more impactful then that decision itself. (Having worked with scoping for many environmental analysis and environmental impact statements, (again, for almost 40 years) I know that connected actions are important to be considered in any final decision. While I won't go into much detail, the connected actions proposed by the Trump Administration include the changes to protection of threatened and endangered species (that changes definitions of the taking or harm to a protected or threatened species), the reversal of the Access and Travel Management Policy (that would open the forest to more motorized access by changing the forests back to being "open" rather than "closed"), and limiting the National Environmental Policy Act (limiting or eliminating public comments), The reversals of policies or laws will all be subject to legal challenges since all of them have been put in place through processes that include public input through the Federal Register. You can expect that any lifting of the Roadless Rule or these other policies or laws will command and extensive use of time and resources before they will have any effect. Something else to consider, lifting the Roadless Rule is not needed to encourage mineral extraction on a National Forest. ANICLA already provides "reasonable access" to existing mineral claims and private inholdings. Trying to use this as a talking point is pointless as it already exists. Missing from the potential impacts of lifting the Roadless Rule is any economic analysis for extracting timber from the forest. The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 not only eliminated the two long-term timber sales, it also eliminated the subsidies supporting the timber industry ($45 million/year as allowed in ANILCA). Without this subsidy it's very unlikely the timber industry will recover much of anything it has lost.

Dear Forest Service leaders, I've lived in Alaska for 50 years and treasure the public lands that are unique to this great state, including the Tongass National Forest, our largest temperate rainforest in the world. My home in Sitka is on the doorstep of this beautiful forest of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, alder, and yellow cedar. The old-growth cathedral trees of this forest are well over 500 years old. Such trees are magical to behold, leaving the observer awestruck. I'm surrounded by pristine streams and rivers that flow through the Tongass, supporting millions of spawning salmon each and every year. These healthy and robust populations of fish depend on clean, fresh water, filtered by the trees that buffer the waterways. These fish ultimately feed millions of people in Alaska, throughout the United States, and around the world. If we protect the forest and streams that are the birthplace of these salmon, we provide an unlimited bounty of meals through the fishermen whose livelihoods depend on this sustainable resource. You can't begin to put a price tag on a resource that can last forever if we only protect the forest that shelters that resource. This magnificent forest is also a place of great beauty and wonder. Each year hundreds of thousands of visitors travel to Sitka to see and walk through the Tongass National Forest along the many wonderful trails that the Forest Service should continue to maintain, as well as the public use cabins. Our fishing community and the many other towns in Southeast Alaska are united in their support of keeping the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. As Alaskans, we value the nine million acres that are protected from new road construction by this good rule. These acres support essential habitat for countless salmon runs, brown bears, deer, and migratory birds that depend the forest for nesting. These acres hold the beauty and wonder that tourists come to see from all over the world. These acres include pockets of old-growth timber that should never be cut. This proposed rule making document notes that there will be no impacts on businesses because the rule will not created new record keeping, reporting or compliance requirements. I find this statement laughable. If you allow new road building in the Tongass National Forest there will clearly be impacts on the environment, the waterways, the fish habitat, the beauty, and countless impacts on businesses associated with our beloved forest! Businesses include fishery operations, tourism operations, wildlife viewing and guiding operations, and impacts on all of the local communities who support keeping the Roadless Rule in place. These are physical, monetary, and environmental impacts that go far beyond the impacts of record keeping. Last, in your timber synopsis you clearly point out that the efficiency gains of lifting the Roadless Rule are entirely limited by the road costs, maintenance, funding gaps and the seven billion dollars in deferred maintenance involving existing roads and bridges. Lifting the Roadless Rule comes with a great cost to the American taxpayer. We have a chance to not make the mistakes of the past. We have chance to end the practice of clearcutting the last of our great forests in America. The Forest Service should focus on protecting our greatest forests such as the Tongass and the Chugach in Alaska, and keep the Roadless Rule in place. Thank you for extending the comment period and please keep the Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, Debbie S. Miller P.O. Box 2808 Sitka, AK 99835

Dear USFS, ​I am writing to express my strong opposition to any proposals or policy shifts that would permit new road construction, timber harvesting, or industrial development within the roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest. ​As America’s largest national forest, the Tongass plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining ecological balance, supporting resilient local economies, and mitigating climate change. Unfragmented old-growth rainforests are increasingly rare worldwide, and opening the Tongass to road building threatens the long-term health and integrity of this critical landscape for several key reasons: ​Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resilience: The Tongass National Forest is one of North America’s most significant terrestrial carbon sinks. Its old-growth trees and intact soil systems store massive amounts of carbon. Constructing roads and opening these stands to industrial logging disrupts these ecosystems, releasing stored carbon and reducing our nation’s natural capacity to absorb greenhouse gases. ​Impact on Salmon and Wildlife Habitat: The Tongass contains thousands of miles of pristine rivers and streams that feed world-class salmon fisheries. Road construction and associated runoff cause soil erosion, siltation, and habitat fragmentation that directly threaten salmon spawning grounds. Intact habitat is equally critical for species such as the Alexander Archipelago wolf, the Sitka black-tailed deer, and the bald eagle. ​Sustainable Local Economies: A healthy, intact forest directly supports Southeast Alaska’s most stable economic drivers—commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation. These industries rely on clean water, healthy fish populations, and pristine wilderness. Sacrificing intact landscapes for short-term resource extraction risks long-term economic instability for local communities and Native Alaskan nations who have stewarded these lands for generations. ​Fiscal Responsibility: Building and maintaining industrial roads in steep, remote, and rainy terrain is extraordinarily costly. The U.S. Forest Service already faces a substantial backlog of road maintenance nationwide. Allocating public taxpayer dollars toward constructing new roads in intact wilderness areas is fiscally imprudent, especially when existing infrastructure requires maintenance. ​The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule has provided essential protections that balance the conservation of wild spaces with community access needs. Retaining roadless protections in the Tongass is essential to safeguard its ecological, economic, and cultural values for generations to come. ​I strongly urge the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service to reject any measures that allow road construction or industrial old-growth logging in the roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest. ​Thank you for considering these comments and for your commitment to public land stewardship. Sincerely, Eric Van Buren Juneau, AK 99801 ericvanburen@msn.com

I am writing to urge you to NOT rescind the Roadless Rule for the Tongass National Forest. I live and work, as a commercial fisherman, in the Tongass. Most Americans, but especially those of us who live here, know that the value of this forest is far greater if the trees are left standing to provide fish habitat and recreation areas for tourism and local alike. With the terrors of climate change causing heat waves, fires and wild storms all over the world, we need to leave the last temperate rain forest as in tact as we possibly can. Much of it has already been logged. Please do what is necessary to save what is left! respectfully, Nancy Behnken 117 Jeff Davis St Sitka, AK 99835