Read the comments.

Prairie Hills Audubon Society, P.O. Box 788, Black Hawk, SD 57718, Here are the comments of Prairie Hills Audubon Society opposing the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RIN 0596-AD66). Our comment letter is attached as a PDF file. Because of file-size limits, the attachments to this letter (A01–A19) will follow tonight in three separate submissions, each with its own cover sheet. Please treat all four submissions together as one comment and include all attachments in the administrative record. Thanks, Nancy Hilding

Prairie Hills Audubon Society, P.O. Box 788, Black Hawk, SD 57718. ...Attachments to the comments of Prairie Hills Audubon Society on RIN 0596-AD66, submission 1 of 3 (Attachments A01–A08). Our comment letter was submitted separately earlier tonight. Please include these attachments in the administrative record.

Nancy Hilding, Black Hawk, SD 57718.......Dear Forest Service, I am very opposed to this rule change proposal. In the early 1990s I was a leader in the local Sierra Club group and helped with the wilderness inventory of 1991. My task was to inventory the former Sand Creek Roadless Area, that had been a part of RARE II. By that time (1991) a substantial part of the RARE II area had been logged and roaded, but enough remained to still qualify as an inventoried roadless area. While doing my research I discovered that the Bear Lodge District was starting to develop a new timber sale in the core of the remaining primitive area. We organized a write-in campaign and networked with other groups, and Tom Farver the district Ranger - bless his heart_- pulled that timber sale and stopped the District from working on it. We have the Sand Creek Roadless Area due to that excellent leadership from a Forest Service District Ranger... The Sierra Club wilderness proposal for the Black Hills was never approved by congress, but the remains of the RARE II areas got designated as roadless again by Clinton. I bless his heart. We disagreed with the Forest Service over proper boundaries for Sand Creek Roadless Area - the Sierra Club saw a larger area as qualifying, but we are grateful for having anything under protection... I have spent the past 35 years working to protect this area - we needed to fight off mining. I am now an elder, who can't hike as much as I used to. However, when going to the National Forest, it was always my goal to find the most primitive areas, on back roads, with lowest person-at-one -time densities, with few roads and the most primitive areas, untouched by man's footprints. I never used the Black Elk Wilderness much, as from where I live I had to drive through repeated large human settlements to reach that area, but to get to the NW corner of the Forest, I traveled through more wild areas of the Black Hills. As a person who cherishes the back country, there is not much left in the Black Hills, due to the hysteria over mountain pine bark beetle followed by hysteria over forest fires and push from the timber industry, our forest is being logged at a not-sustainable rate, in violation of the MUSYA. Most of the forest has been constantly logged, shrimpy baby pine trees are dominating much of the understory, the pine over-story is disappearing. The Forest does not work to fight fire by replacing pine with aspen in the WUI, as the real goal is actually not fighting fire but rather delivering trees to the timber industry. Please let us have these remnants of wild areas, a few wild places that are untouched by man (or less touched). Beaver Park Roadless Area is ironically protected by the Daschle rider. - Daschle wanted to log and road it, so as to fight mountain pine beetle - so he got congress to declare it a roadless area despite low impact logging and roading he planned. . I am not sure you can remove that from Roadless Area status without congressional action. I think we now have a President, who spent his developing years in New York City and never bonded with Nature. I think he does not care about biodiversity, Please stop this rule change,

I am deeply concerned about the proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. I visit wild areas several times a year to reconnect with nature, but protecting these lands matters far beyond my personal experience. Intact wildlife habitat helps safeguard drinking water, reduce wildfire risk, and support local communities whose economies depend on outdoor recreation. There is already ample land available for development. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would sacrifice irreplaceable public lands for short-term private gain. I urge you to keep the Roadless Rule in place and protect these wild areas for future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, stefan hartwig 8908 E Black Walnut St Sioux Falls, SD 57110-7625 stefan@stefanhartwig.com

My name is Andrew Beeman and I live in Harrisburg, South Dakota. I am writing to express my deep opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule. Public lands and intact backcountry forests matter to me because I love the outdoors. I frequently hunt, fish, and hike in wilderness areas. My favorite peak, black elk peak here in the black hills of South Dakota is my favorite to climb. I believe these wilderness areas are the final places we can roam without feeling suffocated by the modern world. These are the last places we can see wild life acting like they should be. For that reason is why I love wilderness areas the what they provide to the our outdoor world. Fully or partially rescinding these protections across nearly 45 million acres of National Forest System lands is a severe mistake. The 2001 Roadless Rule has successfully safeguarded critical ecosystems, water supplies, and biodiversity for over two decades. I reject the premise that dismantling this national safeguard is a necessary or effective tool for wildfire prevention or localized forest health. Building industrial logging roads into remote, intact areas fragments vital wildlife migration corridors, increases soil erosion into public watersheds, and contradicts established science regarding human-caused fire risks. Furthermore, existing agency flexibilities already permit necessary localized vegetation management where communities face genuine risk. Instead of moving forward with this rollback, the agency should select Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative) in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule fully intact. Sincerely, Andrew Beeman 734 w willow st unit 3 Harrisburg, SD 57032 Hunter and conservationist.