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

From Tom Rutecki 1513 Ling Ct Juneau, AK 99801 Please keep the Tongass roadless rule intact for these reasons. Commercial fishing and visitor tourism are the primary economic drivers in Southeast Alaska. The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule directly protects these sectors by preserving the intact ecosystems they rely on: 1. Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Economic Value: Southeast Alaska’s commercial fishing industry contributes over $800 million annually to the regional economy and accounts for roughly 15% of local employment. Habitat Preservation: Intact roadless watersheds safeguard clean, cold, and silt-free streams that produce over 70% of the wild salmon harvested in the region. Risk Avoided: Unprotected timber harvesting and road building lead to soil erosion and stream sedimentation, which destroys spawning beds and threatens wild fish populations. 2. Tourism & Visitor Economy Economic Value: Recreation and tourism generate approximately $800 million in regional visitor spending, supporting thousands of local jobs and constituting Southeast Alaska's largest private-sector employer. The "Wild Alaska" Asset: Visitor experiences—ranging from small-ship wilderness cruises and kayak tours to sportfishing and wildlife viewing—rely explicitly on pristine, undisturbed landscapes. Revenue from Protected Areas: Lands covered by the Roadless Rule generate over two-thirds of total Tongass visitor spending (~$245 million). Industrial logging roads and clearcuts fragment these natural viewsheds, permanently degrading the wilderness quality that tourists pay to experience. Economic Comparison: While timber historically defined parts of the region's economy, taxpayer-subsidized logging in the Tongass has resulted in hundreds of millions in federal losses over recent decades. In contrast, fishing and tourism represent sustainable, self-supporting industries that depend directly on keeping forest habitats intact.

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

To the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service: My name is Stláay V. Cloud-Morrison. I am Kaigani Haida, Yáahl (Raven) moiety, Yahkw Jánaas (Middle-Town Women) clan, of the Shark House/Brown Bear House, with roots in Daadans (Langara Island). I am an Alaska Native artist, mother, Navy veteran, and registered nurse. I begin with who I am because my opposition to the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is not simply an opinion about federal land-management policy. As a Haida woman, my relationship to the lands and waters of Southeast Alaska is ancestral, cultural, and deeply personal. The Tongass is not simply acreage. It is a living landscape that continues to sustain Indigenous people and those who call Southeast Alaska home. Our Indigenous relationship with these forests, waters, plants, animals, and salmon has existed since the beginning, but the love and responsibility felt for this land are not ours alone. The Tongass sustains people who live, work, raise their families, gather food, recreate, and build their lives here. USDA, through the U.S. Forest Service, is proposing to rescind protections that currently restrict road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest across nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands. These are not simply acres on a map. They are forests, salmon streams, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and places of subsistence, culture, livelihood, and connection. I am particularly concerned about what this means for the Tongass. Once an intact forest is fragmented by roads and industrial development, we cannot simply put it back together when we decide we have taken too much. Roads create access, access creates additional development pressure, and individual decisions that appear small can accumulate into enormous and permanent loss. For Indigenous people, there is something fundamentally troubling about continuing to describe our ancestral landscapes primarily in terms of what can be extracted from them. We have cared for, known, named, harvested from, traveled through, and lived with these lands since the beginning. That relationship and our continued presence deserve meaningful consideration. But protecting the Tongass is not solely an Indigenous issue. There are many ways to belong to and care for a place. What we share is an understanding that the value of the Tongass cannot be adequately measured in board feet, miles of road, or dollars generated through extraction. There must be places where our measure of value is not how much we can take. I urge USDA and the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and retain its protections. Please give meaningful weight to ecological integrity, clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence, Indigenous cultural relationships, the communities that call these places home, and the generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions being made today. Forty-five million acres should not be viewed as 45 million acres of opportunity for extraction. They should also be understood as 45 million acres we still have the opportunity to protect. Respectfully, Stláay V. Cloud-Morrison Kaigani Haida Anchorage, Alaska Sincerely, Stlaay Cloud-Morrison Anchorage, AK 99507-3071 sv83cm@gmail.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

I vigorously oppose the proposed repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to maintain the existing Rule as is. The Roadless Rule protects the watersheds of many of our National Wild and Scenic Rivers in California, as well as many rivers and streams deemed eligible for national protection by the Forest Service. The roadless areas through which these wild rivers flow are an important refuge for threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. They provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation in a primitive setting, such as hiking, backpacking, whitewater boating, mountain biking, and even motorized recreation on existing legal trails. Roadless areas provide clean water for wildlife and recreation and the rivers that flow from the roadless areas into reservoirs are an important source of high-quality water for downstream communities and farms. Many rivers to consider include but are not limited to the North Fork American, Tuolumne, South Fork Kings, Middle Fork Feather, and North Fork Kern. The Roadless Rule does not limit public access. Most roadless areas are legally available for public recreation under the Rule – they are simply closed to new road building, commercial logging, and other development that requires new roads. It is not true that roadless areas increase wildfire threats. Roads – not roadless areas – are a primary source of wildfire starts. I urge that Roadless Rule be retained to protect our wild places for recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and as important sources of clean water for our communities and farms. Sincerely, Sincerely, Maija Dreimane-Welch Anchorage, AK 99502