FS-2025-0001-607497

I 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, Rubicon, Mokelumne, 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. With 30+ years as a career wildland firefighter I have direct knowledge of how many fires are cause by humans, especially when they have easy access to forested areas by vehicle. Please go into the Dept of Agriculture (Forest Service) and Dept of Interior’s “wildfire cause” GIS data and plot it on maps. It is a quick & easy visual of human caused fire with a direct correlation to roads. I have direct knowledge that it is still possible to reduce hazardous fuels (in order to reduce wildfire risk) in Roadless Areas, without repealing the Rule. I have been an author, editor, and fire/fuels specialist on several hazardous fuels reduction environmental analysis projects and implementation of those NEPA projects within Roadless Areas. So please do NOT spin this repeal as a way to reduce wildfire risk when there are other tools (besides logging) to complete this work that already exists. Which brings me to my next comment. Heavy equipment also causes wildfires and bring risk to the roadless areas if used for logging operations. I have responded to many equipment caused fires outside of roadless areas both as a fire fighter and as a fire investigator. All you have to do is pull the “wildfire cause” GIS data to see this fact. 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, Teresa Riesenhuber Sincerely, Teresa Riesenhuber Somerset, CA 95684