I strongly oppose the USDA’s proposal to rescind the permanent 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule because the stated Purpose and Need for Action is invalid given its basis in Executive Orders (EOs), as opposed to constitutionally legitimate law. The four EOs are:
-EO 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential
-EO 14154, Unleashing American Energy
-EO 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
-EO 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production
Theses EOs are not an appropriate basis for rescinding a permanent Conservation Rule for two reasons:
1 - Whereas the President of the United States has the authority to issue EOs under Article II of the US Constitution, that authority comes with a specific duty: to make sure the laws be faithfully executed. In contrast, these four EOs add up to rescinding—not executing—a permanent rule and are therefore outside the scope of Article II of the Constitution.
2 - Donald Trump, who issued these orders, does not own these resources entrusted to the USDA and the USFS. Rather, the citizens of the United States own them. Therefore, the matter of changing a permanent Rule (or not changing it, given that it’s permanent) should be left to Congress to consider on behalf of their constituents, with thoughtful input from scientists and data-driven studies that formed the rationale for the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the first place.