I completely and without exception oppose the proposal to rescind any part of the existing Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I have lived for the past decade near the Gila National Forest in southern New Mexico, and work as a pharmacist in a local critical access hospital. The economic benefit conferred by the existing Roadless Rule--Its protection of rare Sky Islands wildlife, the magnificent forests and pristine waterways of the Black Range, the cultural heritage of numerous Mogollon and Mimbres archaeological sites--is what sustains every community in my region of the Southwest. Ecological tourism is our lifeblood, and rescinding the Roadless Rule will gut so many areas of the West of our communities' most valuable asset. Will my critical access hospital remain open when those who have only remained here for our unmatched natural beauty choose to move away? Will new families move to our area when fire risk in the Gila is increased because we've opened the forests to a greater volume of vehicular traffic? Will a logged forest continue to draw birders and international tourists in droves, and will the businesses sustained by them close? Each of these questions represents a tangible, palpable fear in our community, and, as a seasoned healthcare professional with a doctorate in my field, it is impossible for me to not consider the social, health, and community implications of losing our forests' protections. If we rescind the Roadless Rule, we are inexorably destroying not just the recreational opportunity that intact, pristine wilderness allows, the camping, the fishing, the hiking, and the hunting, but the ability, in an increasingly expensive and stressful world, for families to bond at no cost in nature, for individuals to maintain mental and physical health walking and exploring, and for our increasingly pressured wildlife to take refuge from continued encroachment into their habitats. I, and so many of my healthcare colleagues, spend nearly every free day we have exploring our local National Forest land, and we ourselves will be completely gutted if the Roadless Rule is overturned, if our rare wildlife continues to vanish, if fire risk here increases, if our waterways are further degraded, if our forests are logged, and if our community's tourist numbers plummet. The West is already so strained, and rescinding the Roadless Rule will only hasten its ecological and economic downfall. Rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be a tragic misstep for our nation, and it is absolutely imperative we choose Alternative 1, the No Action alternative.