I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. We need to protect our wild, public, and National Forest lands. I live in Oregon and this would affect 2 million acres here including the Mount Hold National Forest that has seen devastating wild fires this fire season. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would put already strained areas under more pressure and risk that would affect our beautiful state lands, our resources, and our people. We have seen enough unprecedented wildfire seasons and the trauma they cause in the last few years, and the chances would increase 4 times over as studies show due to roads and logging. We need to be mitigating these risks as our climate changes, not increasing them. Not to mention increasing funding to keep up these roads. The National Forest road system maintenance is backlogged in deferments close to $7 billion, with a B. And we would only be increasing that burden on taxpayers and the Forest Service workers who have been targeted by cuts. This administration ran on saving the people money and would only be putting more pressure on taxpayers that are already seeing tension build as prices for everyday necessities rise. This will create financial anxiety on top of the anxiety of increased fire risk, resource safety with changes to watershed protection for over 2 million Oregonians (that's one Oregonian at risk for every acre, just in case you weren't counting), and the fear of losing or changing recreational areas that many Oregonians enjoy and many tourists come here to enjoy, boosting our local economies. This is also threatening Indigenous cultural values. Many of the proposed areas affected are next to reservation land like the Grande Ronde, Warm Springs, Siletz, and Umatilla reservations. Much of this land is culturally important for traditional ways, for food sovereignty, and native plant restoration (which has been crucial for habitat repair after big fire seasons like the one this year). And majority sentiment among tribal governments is opposed to the Roadless Rule change. And these are just the human considerations, this is not considering the loss of habitat and the destruction of ecosystems among our most intact forests that are home to many important species of flora and fauna native to our area, many that are threatened including the marbled murrelet that require old growth coastal forests, such as the Siuslaw National Forest lands that would be targeted. And this is just for Oregon, each state has its own lands and resources that this would devastate and it would cause repercussions for all of us as a whole, both environmentally and economically. For all of these reasons, fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the draft EIS would be a detrimental mistake for all of us. I wholeheartedly oppose the proposal to rescind or alter the Roadless Rule and support Alternative 1 which is the no action rule. We must protect what makes America great and that is our people and our wild, public, and National Forest lands.