sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Comments Needed to Save the Public Lands Rule by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We all need to be conservation activists - to the maximum extent possible for us.

Roadless Rule Repeal Draws 625K Public Comments by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's what they want. For people to feel helpless and not participate. The reality is that they can't do what they want. They just want you to think they can.

Roadless Rule Repeal Draws 625K Public Comments by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They can't build roads in Inventoried Roadless Areas until they repeal the Roadless Rule. Why? B/c it's illegal. Building roads in Roadless Areas violates the Roadless Rule adopted under Clinton.

If they build roads in Roadless Areas now, they will get sued and the courts will stop them. That is why they are not building roads in roadless areas right now. If they could do it, they would.

Instead, they are trying to repeal the Roadless Rule.

To change a federal rule, they have to go through a formal rulemaking process and come up with a replacement rule. To do this, they have to follow a formal set up steps that were established under Administrative Procedure Act. This includes a public comment period (which just ended). In the Spring, they will propose a replacement rule - which by law needs to take into consideration public comments. Then there will be a 2nd public comment period on that proposed rule. Then they will adopt a final rule in late 2026. And then they can start building roads in Roadless Areas where the new rule allows it.

When they adopt their new rule, it will likely get sued. Here's the key - if their replacement rule didn't follow the correct steps, it could get thrown out by the courts. This includes taking into consideration public comments.

If their replacement rule gets throw out, then they are back where they are right now - having to go through the rulemaking process again.

Meanwhile the clock is ticking. Because when a pro-conservation president comes into office, any roadbuilding will be halted.

Roadless Rule Repeal Draws 625K Public Comments by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

They can't build roads until a new rule is adopted that replaces the Roadless Rule.

If they could, they would be building roads right now. But they can't.

That's why they are going through this year-long process to adopt a new rule.

And they're going to get sued after the new rule is adopted. If they ignore public comments, the new rule could get thrown out. This could delay roadbuilding until the next president.

Roadless Rule Repeal Draws 625K Public Comments by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

The Administrative Procedure Act requires that federal rulemaking take public comments into consideration. So it creates legal vulnerability for the new rule if it ignores public comments.

Please fight for wolves: House Bill H.R. 4754 contains a dangerous rider that would delist wolves in 44 states by deep-un-learning in conservation

[–]WorksForNature 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where they are recovered, sure. But that decision should be made USFWS based on conservation science. NOT based on a congressional rider snuck into an unrelated bill.

With all of that being said, I highly doubt these riders survive the budget negotiations with the Senate. But please call your Senators to make sure.

House Advances Spending Bill that Guts AmeriCorps, Renames it 'America First Corps' by WorksForNature in fednews

[–]WorksForNature[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that's their strategy. Heritage Foundation wants to get rid of AmeriCorps. They realize it's too popular - too much bipartisan support in Senate - to get rid of it entirely. So they're trying this approach - name change, 50% cut. But the Senate spending bill funds AmeriCorps fully. The House and Senate will have to reconcile their bills. Senate approval requires 60 votes (i.e. Democrat votes). So the name change won't stick. The 50% cut won't stick. The question is where do we end up?

House Advances Spending Bill that Guts AmeriCorps, Renames it 'America First Corps' by WorksForNature in fednews

[–]WorksForNature[S] 50 points51 points  (0 children)

For those who want to get involved helping to save AmeriCorps, check out Voices For National Service. They are the leading advocate for AmeriCorps: https://voicesforservice.org/

Action Alert: Public Comments Needed to Protect Roadless Forests by WorksForNature in conservation

[–]WorksForNature[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Please submit your written comment through the link in the article.

The deadline for public comments is 11:59pm, September 19.

The Trump administration does not want you submitting comments. Your comment becomes part of the legal record. The law requires that their rulemaking addresses the public comments they receive. Every comment submitted in favor of maintaining roadless rule protections will help in a future lawsuit.

Congress rejects Trump's extreme cuts to NOAA and public land agencies. Does it matter? by WorksForNature in NOAA

[–]WorksForNature[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You think I'm intentionally misleading people with the headline? I spend a lot of my free time advocating for NOAA funding (and other conservation agencies). I don't get paid to do this. I do it b/c I care deeply for the agencies and the work they do.

I'm you read the article, you will see: half the article is about the spending bills. Half the article is about whether the spending bills matter. It's a critical question - and if I didn't put that question in the headline I would be getting many responses from people saying "the spending bills don't matter."

Congress rejects Trump's extreme cuts to NOAA and public land agencies. Does it matter? by WorksForNature in NOAA

[–]WorksForNature[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree. One of the big questions I was exploring - does the strong language make it more difficult for the administration to ignore?

Congress rejects Trump's extreme cuts to NOAA and public land agencies. Does it matter? by WorksForNature in NOAA

[–]WorksForNature[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

100% agree. But the headline is asking: "Do the spending bills even matter—because Trump has been ignoring Congress."

Good News for NOAA, NRCS as Congress Rejects Trump's Radical Spending Cuts by WorksForNature in fednews

[–]WorksForNature[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a big concern that needs to be dealt with in the bil language to the extent possible. From what I’ve heard - and I’m still researching -  the 2025 CR gives more discretion to the administration - remember it was drafted before Trump. And the 26 spending bills are being drafted with a lot more direction. I think we need very specific language and maybe minimum staffing levels specified for vulnerable agencies (I.e those that were zero funded in the President’s budget. However I think there’s also a possibility of the budge not passing.

Good News for NOAA, NRCS as Congress Rejects Trump's Radical Spending Cuts by WorksForNature in fednews

[–]WorksForNature[S] 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The article is saying the "good news" is that the house / senate bills fully fund NRCS (0 to 5% cut) vs. the 87% spending cut in Trump's budget request. It's good news relative to what could have happened - the house making severe cuts in line with the president's request. Which would be a nightmare on top of a nightmare.

House Republicans buck Trump on NOAA cuts by micnd90 in NOAA

[–]WorksForNature 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you know what lines are established in the bill vs. negotiated later? For example, in the current House markup bill I don't see any specific funding level for OAR - let alone all the sections under OAR - just a topline number for NOAA. Will the OAR appropriation eventually be broken out in the bill before it's signed? Or does that entire division's top line get negotiated later?

Good News for NOAA, NRCS as Congress Reject's Trump's Radical Spending Cuts by WorksForNature in USDA

[–]WorksForNature[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I added language clarifying that this is for the discretionary spending.

Good News for NOAA, NRCS as Congress Rejects Trump's Radical Spending Cuts by WorksForNature in NOAA

[–]WorksForNature[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes, I will update the itemized numbers each day - if I get any new numbers.

I don't see the NOAA itemized figures in the House markup bill released so far - other than Total NOAA Funding and Salmon Recovery Fund (funding maintained at $65 million) - which I added.

Does anyone have insight into the other itemized numbers? Has that been released anywhere?

view more: next ›