Biden-Capito talks fall apart. What's next?: “Democrats and the White House are turning
to an alternate group of senators crafting their own infrastructure proposal after bipartisan talks between President Biden and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) fizzled out yesterday. The breakdown between Biden and Capito came after nearly two months of
discussion and the exchange of a few counteroffers, but the two sides failed to close the gap on the scope of a package, the overall cost and how to pay for the plan. The White House is now pursuing talks with a bipartisan group of lawmakers known as the "G-20,"
but top Democrats signaled yesterday that they're prepared to go it alone should the GOP remain unwilling to come around on key priorities, including climate. In a statement after a phone call with the president, Capito said she was "disappointed" that Biden
had chosen to pull the plug on negotiations. "Despite the progress we made in our negotiations, the president continued to respond with offers that included tax increases as his pay for, instead of several practical options that would have not been harmful
to individuals, families, and small businesses," she said in a statement. "While I appreciate President Biden's willingness to devote so much time and effort to these negotiations, he ultimately chose not to accept the very robust and targeted infrastructure
package, and instead, end our discussions." In a statement, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that Biden had informed Capito that her latest offer "did not, in his view, meet the essential needs of our country to restore our roads and bridges, prepare
us for our clean energy future, and create jobs.’”
[E&E News, 6/9/21]
https://bit.ly/3v6WBSw
5 takeaways from the BLM nominee confirmation hearing: “Tracy Stone-Manning's Senate confirmation
hearing for director of the Bureau of Land Management yesterday went about as well as supporters of the longtime government and conservation advocate could have expected. Stone-Manning withstood an onslaught of tough questions concerning past statements she
made while with the National Wildlife Federation, and her current views on politically dicey subjects like oil and gas development and the Biden administration's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. In one noteworthy instance, Stone-Manning parried a question
lobbed by Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma. "Fill in the blank: Public lands are for what?" Lankford asked. "Public lands are a beautiful, American, unique idea that are for many purposes," she responded. When Lankford pressed her for how she would
prioritize competing uses of federal lands, she didn't hesitate. "I think that's at the heart of what makes me ready to do this job," she said. "I have spent a career of balancing the needs of various communities and stakeholders. I would do that and then
some in this position. I would have law and science and community input drive decision-making." Stone-Manning also offered some insight into her position on several hot-button issues. Here are five takeaways from yesterday's Energy and Natural Resources Committee
confirmation hearing.”
[E&E News, 6/9/21]
https://bit.ly/3cqExMz
Biden admin pushes back on oil leasing freeze lawsuits: “The Biden administration struck
back this week on claims that the president acted outside his authority when he ordered a pause on new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters. In briefs to two federal courts, Justice Department attorneys argued that Republican attorneys general and
the Western Energy Alliance do not have a legal basis to challenge President Biden's executive order temporarily blocking new leasing. Biden had ordered a pause on new drilling lease sales on his first day in office so that federal agencies led by the Interior
Department could study the program's climate and environmental impacts. The administration asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Monday to dismiss nearly all the arguments in the case led by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff
Landry (R) and 12 other attorneys general. The 13 legal officials had argued that the pause would hurt state coffers funding coastal restoration projects. But the challengers had not put forward a "plausible claim" for how Biden had acted outside his authority
in issuing the executive order, DOJ attorneys argued. "The bulk of Plaintiffs' wide-ranging complaint should be dismissed because the factual allegations, the documents cited, and the relief sought show that their claims fail as a matter of law," DOJ attorneys
wrote. The attorneys general had also failed to give a 60-day notice of intent to sue in a citizen suit challenge under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act — a condition for bringing Interior to federal court, according to the Biden administration. Nor did
they challenge a final agency action, which could also merit judicial review. Responding to a separate challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, the Biden administration also contested claims by Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill
(R) and industry advocates at the Western Energy Alliance, who sought a preliminary injunction to spur Interior to offer quarterly lease sales.”
[E&E News, 6/9/21]
https://bit.ly/3w8cKZk
Before a prescribed burn comes a ton of planning: ““I had no idea they did all this planning.”
It’s a comment Fred Ellis, assistant fire management officer with the Pagosa Ranger District in the San Juan National Forest, hears consistently after community presentations for people living near a prescribed burn. Before the first crews are in the field
to light a prescribed burn, up to three years of planning may have gone into the effort to maximize the safety of the operation, the effectiveness in improving forest health and the effectiveness of lowering the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. In fact, before
any prescribed burn even reaches initial planning stages, the general practice of using prescription burning to cut down on forest understory must be approved of in broader earlier studies required for each individual national forest. The first is a land/resource
management plan. This overarching document must permit the use of prescribed burns as appropriate for the ecology in each individual national forest. Secondly, prescribed burns follow a broader fire management plan in place for each national forest, and burns
must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Any individual burn may require an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. Those requirements mean a lot of work is done in the San Juan National Forest a year or more before the
typical prescribed burning season – April and early May and again in September. In the typical year, about 10,000 acres in the San Juan National Forest are treated by prescribed fire, which can include everything from burning slash piles to a 1,000-acre prescribed
burn.”
[Durango Herald, 6/9/21]
https://bit.ly/3pB2V3y
SHRED Act would help national forests manage surging recreation desires: “Popular destinations
such as the White River National Forest would have more funds to better manage the outdoor recreation that threatens to overwhelm them under a bill introduced Tuesday in Congress. The Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development or SHRED Act would allow national
forests to keep a high percentage of the funds collected from private ski areas for use of public lands. The majority of the funds, 75%, would be earmarked to support Forest Service ski area programs and more efficiently process ski industry requests for improvements.
The other 25% would go to recreation management efforts, which have received declining dollars even as the number of visitors has soared in recent decades. The bill was welcomed Tuesday by Scott Fitzwilliams, supervisor of the 2.3 million White River National
Forest that extends from Independence Pass to the Flat Tops and from Rifle to Summit County. “The recreation program has been working on baling wire and duct tape for many years,” Fitzwilliams said. “(The SHRED Act) evens the playing field and is a step in
the right direction.” The U.S. government has established a system where national forests retain revenue from outfitter and guide permits, grazing fees and timber receipts to support those programs. However, the revenue from ski area permit fees goes back
to the national treasury. Some national forests, such as the White River, generate tens of millions of dollars annually from the ski area fees, so they are missing out on a revenue source that could be a game-changer.”
[The Aspen Times, 6/8/21]
https://bit.ly/3g8F9sN
The Line 3 pipeline protests are about much more than climate change: “For Bibeau and the
Anishinaabe people, the wild rice harvest is at once tradition, sustenance, and cultural lifeway. According to their oral tradition, the Anishinaabe came to settle in the Great Lakes basin thousands of years ago when they followed a sacred shell in the sky
to a place where food grew on water. When they arrived, they found wild rice — one of the only grains native to North America. Wild rice in the Anishinaabe language is manoomin: the good berry. “Wild rice is our life. Where there’s Anishinaabe there’s rice.
Where there’s rice there’s Anishinaabe. It’s our most sacred food,” said Anishinaabe activist Winona LaDuke. “It’s who we are.” The future of wild rice in this region, however, is at risk. Wild rice has already been threatened by climate change, mining, water
pollution, and genetic modification. LaDuke runs the White Earth Land Recovery project, a nonprofit that seeks to preserve the wild rice harvest, as well as the environmental justice nonprofit Honor the Earth. She’s spent much of her career defending the grain.
“We have very little left, and it’s central to our identity,” she told me. Now, LaDuke and Bibeau are facing a new battle for the future of wild rice: the so-called Line 3 pipeline, which is slated to carry 760,000 barrels of crude oil a day across more than
200 bodies of water, including lakes, streams, wetlands, the headwaters of the Mississippi River — and over 3,400 acres of wild rice waters.”
[Grist, 6/9/21]
https://bit.ly/3g3Q9Ya
Justin McCarthy
He/Him/His
Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
C: 540-312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.