I support renewable energy, including geothermal energy, but I am concerned that this project has not been fully evaluated for its environmental impacts. Because the project is near sensitive wilderness, steep terrain, and important streams, it should undergo a more complete environmental review before any lease is issued. My main concerns are: • The project could affect local streams, groundwater, and fish habitat. • Drilling and construction could require new roads, heavy equipment access, and year-round traffic in a fragile area. • The project could disturb wilderness character, wildlife habitat, and the scenic quality of the area. • The project should not allow fracking in exploratory wells. • Water for drilling and operations should not be taken from local streams; if water is needed, it should be brought in from municipal sources. • Strong protections should be required for spills, blowouts, well failures, and site cleanup. • The project should include clear financial responsibility, including a substantial bond, so cleanup and restoration are fully covered if something goes wrong. • Any lease should be limited in time and should not remain open indefinitely. A full Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared before any lease is finalized, and it should clearly spell out what activities will and will not be allowed. At a minimum, each leasing project should require a closed-loop geothermal system, no new roads in sensitive areas, no fracking, no local stream withdrawals, and full restoration of the site if the project does not proceed safely or successfully. I support clean energy, but only if it can be developed without unnecessary harm to water, wildlife, wilderness values, and nearby communities.

I am writing in strong opposition to the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale (Project #58626) on the Tongass National Forest and urge the Forest Service to select the No-Action alternative. I support responsible timber harvest, including the careful harvest of replanted, mature second-growth timber, but I am concerned that this project has not been fully evaluated for its impacts on the old-growth forests, watersheds, and subsistence resources of Prince of Wales Island. Because the project area is near sensitive salmon streams, critical deer winter habitat, and some of the last remaining ancient forest on the island, it should undergo a more complete environmental review before any action alternative is approved. My main concerns are: - The project could significantly harm the Red Bay watershed, including the subsistence sockeye salmon run that rural communities depend on. - New and reconditioned roads will increase sediment, degrade stream habitat, and open access corridors that amplify hunting pressure and predator efficiency. - The cumulative impact of this project has not been honestly assessed against the backdrop of decades of intensive logging that has already removed approximately 94% of productive old-growth on Prince of Wales Island. - The environmental review does not adequately account for the Ketchikan rural designation, which added approximately thousands of new subsistence hunters to an already stressed deer population. - An ample supply of mature replanted, second-growth timber exists— there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of acres of it on the Tongass, more than half on Prince of Wales Island. Mature second growth, outside of naturally regenerated stands should be fully evaluated as an alternative before any old-growth harvest is approved. A full and honest Environmental Impact Statement should be completed before any action alternative is approved, and it should clearly address subsistence impacts on both deer and salmon, cumulative logging history, and the availability of second-growth alternatives. I support a timber economy that can sustain itself without destroying what remains of these ancient forests — but only if every necessary step is taken to protect old-growth, structurally complex forest, healthy watersheds, and the communities that depend on them.