G2. Local Greens

The University of Toronto (U of T) has adopted strong targets for improving sustainability and reducing climate damaging emissions. Currently, however, less than one percent of the university's electricity demand is met by on-site solar power. Our report finds that U of T could meet 25% of its electricity needs by greater deployment of

The post Scaling solar power at the University of Toronto appeared first on Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

“The Hub” is a weekly round-up of transportation related news in the Philadelphia area and beyond. Check back weekly to keep up-to-date on the issues Clean Air Council’s transportation staff finds important.

Join the Clean Air Council in participating in the Pretzel Pedal Challenge! Log your bike rides from September 1-30 to automatically earn points that qualify you for discounts and prizes! Create a Share-A-Ride profile to join!

Image Source: WHYY

WHYY: SEPTA gets $80 million federal grant to make ADA upgrades at trolley stations – Federal grant money has been awarded to SEPTA, through the All Stations Accessibility Program. $80 million has been allocated for the reconstruction of the 22nd Street, 33rd Street, and 36th Street trolley stations, building elevators, and a complete overhaul of facilities. The upgrades should be completed in 2-3 years, coinciding with the implementation of new accessible trolleys, slated for arrival in 2029.

Image Source: 6ABC

6ABC: Local athletes develop lifelong passions atop bikes with Independence Youth Cycling – Independence Youth Cycling is a local nonprofit that connects kids with cycling through bike-share programs, coaches and teams, and team rides. The nonprofit supports series across Philadelphia, south Jersey, and Montgomery County. Teams include introducing kids to mountain biking as a sport through race and adventure events, and trail rides in different parks across Philadelphia.

Image Source: BillyPenn

BillyPenn: The status of the Spring Garden Connector project – The Spring Garden Street corridor has been waiting for improvements and upgrades since 2009. The corridor improvements include protections for cyclists and pedestrians, increased access to green space, and better connectivity to the nationwide East Coast Greenway Project. The project did succeed in 2016 with a public art installation along I-95 underpass outside Spring Garden Station. However, the core concept, protected bike lanes, is still to come. The project is still in the design phase, with hopes to find construction contracts in 2029.

Other Stories

Mass Transit Mag: New Garden State Initiative report says NJ Transit needs performance-based review, not just more funding

The Inquirer: Burlington County’s free shuttle bus will finally hit the road next week

Transit Forward Philadelphia: The Impact of Trolley Modernization on Philly Students

Philadelphia Today: PHL Airport Buys 31.6-Acre Property for $42 Million to Fuel Future Expansion

Mass Transit Mag: NJ Transit advances bus technology upgrades to add Wi-Fi, better bus tracking

Pittsburgh Business Times: Amtrak creates board committee to guide expansion as Pittsburgh gains second daily train

New polling has revealed that 85% of regional Hunter residents have experienced an extreme weather event in the past five years, and 80% say these events are driving up their cost of living.

Annie Fox, staff attorney at Clean Air Council, speaks at the rally.

“We know data centers are coming, we know the people of Philly are unprotected, and we demand that Council take one step to adding protection with a moratorium NOW.”

PHILADELPHIA – More than 200 Philadelphians gathered Monday outside City Hall to launch the No Data Centers in Philly campaign, calling on City Council to pass a citywide data center moratorium. 

VIEW PHOTOS // WATCH LIVESTREAM

Two potential data center sites have been identified in Southwest Philadelphia and the Northeast, but Philadelphia does not currently have any rules on how communities should be protected. 

Philly’s push for a moratorium is part of a growing national response: More than 500 communities nationwide have passed data center moratoriums or bans. If passed, Philadelphia would be the largest city in the country to pass a data center moratorium. A local petition calling for a moratorium has gathered more than 2,300 signatures.

Data centers increase electric bills, pollution, water waste, and power surveillance and AI technologies. A recent poll found 76% of Pennsylvania voters oppose data center construction in their communities.

Groups in attendance supporting the call for a moratorium represented physicians, moms, veterans, pastors, children, neighborhood groups, environmental groups, racial justice groups, and more, including: Moms for Clean Air Force, Food and Water Watch, About Face Veterans Philly, Alliance for a Just Philadelphia, Asian Pacific Islander Political Alliance, Reclaim Philadelphia, March on Harrisburg, Save Chinatown, No Arena in the Heart of Our City, Peace Justice Sustainability Now, HERE 4 Climate Justice, Sunrise Philly, Camp Sojourner, the Organizing Center, Philly Thrive, Black Alliance for Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Amistad Law Project, 215 People’s Alliance, Brewerytown Sharswood Neighborhood Coalition, Earth Quaker Action Team, Clean Air Council, Library Freedom Project, and more.

Sonya Sanders, resident of Grays Ferry and board president of Philly Thrive, said:
“People in my neighborhood are still sick and suffering from the pollution of the oil refinery that went on for generations. I lost my beloved husband, Big Ray, to cancer because in my eyes, the pollution killed him. And now Big Tech wants to come in here and do it all over again. They want to get rich off our backs, profiting off Black and brown people again. Thinking about my friends who are struggling with cancer and breathing disorders, and in memory of my husband Big Ray, we’re saying: press pause. Put the people at the table. We need to put people before profit. We need a moratorium now.”

Nikki Grant, co-executive director of Amistad Law Project, said:
“Data centers are the physical place where the AI tools that surveil us live. We know that the safest communities have an abundance of resources like quality education, affordable housing, healthcare, including mental healthcare, and clean air and green spaces. Unfortunately, instead of making deep investments in the things that keep us safe, Black and brown and working class communities in Philadelphia get police, prison, detention and deportation. If we want to stop the overpolicing of Black neighborhoods, we must stop the massive expansion of hyperscale data centers nationwide, and that fight starts here at home. That’s why we demand a moratorium now.”

Dr. Daniel Wolk, family physician and geriatrician at Bryn Mawr Family Practice and Residency Program and member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said:
“Peoples’ health depends on the health of their environment. We are now in the midst of a race by big tech companies, fossil gas producers and their billionaire leaders to build data centers as fast and as big as possible, regardless of their impact on public health, driven by the need for profit. Data centers, powered by fossil gas, pollute our air with toxic nitrogen oxides and tiny particles called PM2.5, increasing rates of asthma in our children, and deaths from heart disease, stroke, dementia, and respiratory disease in our elders. Guided by the first principle in the Hippocratic oath: ‘First, do no harm,’ we call on City Council to enact a moratorium now on data center development in Philadelphia.”

Annie Fox, staff attorney with Clean Air Council, said:
“We know that new dirty fossil fuel power generation and extra fracking needed to feed these behemoths will multiply air pollution linked to asthma, heart disease, and even premature death, most endangering our children, our elders, and people who already have health struggles. There’s also so much that we don’t know, and we can’t race ahead until we do. What regulations are right to protect the people of Philadelphia and our environment? We need that moratorium to give the city government time to figure that out. The city shouldn’t trample our health in a contrived race to attract huge data centers that benefit large corporations, not us. More than 500 communities have passed data center moratoriums, let’s make Philadelphia next.” 

Shawmar Pitts, managing co-director of Philly Thrive, said:
“Big Tech could build a data center in Philly right now, today, if they wanted to, because we don’t have a moratorium. We don’t have protection for the people. Big Tech gets a tax break, and then we gotta pay their taxes, their electric bill, their water bill, and sacrifice our health. Slowly dying in Grays Ferry from the refinery poison was normal to us. So we know the playbook already and it’s not happening again. We wanna see City Council stand with the people and be on the right side of the history, making sure we benefit economically and we put the health of the people first. Do it with a moratorium now.”

Austin Cole, national co-coordinator of the Black Alliance for Peace, said:
“These are not neutral buildings. Data centers help expand surveillance while our PECO bills go up and we get air, water, and noise pollution. They concentrate power and control in unaccountable companies led by tech oligarchs and unaccountable police, ICE, and federal agencies who surveil our communities, harass our families, and prey on our neighbors. A hyperscale data center in any neighborhood in our city is a threat to all Philadelphians, especially working class, Black, Brown, immigrant, and poor residents. We know data centers are coming, we know the people of Philly are unprotected, and we demand that Council take one step to adding protection with a moratorium NOW.”

Senia Lopez, resident of Northeast Philadelphia and organizer with 215 People’s Alliance, said:
“Northeast Philadelphia is often forgotten by our elected officials, but developers and Big Tech companies have not forgotten us. Big Tech is targeting Philadelphia for data centers, including a potential site two miles from my home. They see our neighborhoods as places where they can build, expand, and make money. But right now, Philadelphia has no clear rules to ensure that the people affected by these decisions have a say. A moratorium would give Philadelphia time to create protections and establish a process in which residents have real power over what gets built in our neighborhoods.”

###

No Data Centers in Philly is a campaign to put Philly first. We’re calling for a citywide data center moratorium, binding standards to protect our affordability, health, jobs, data, and quality of life, and a transparent public process that ensures Philadelphians decide what gets built in our communities. We believe that what gets built in our city must strengthen the neighborhoods and people that make Philly, Philly – not sacrifice us.

In a recent letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a broad coalition of Tribes and environmental groups expressed concern over the Bureau of Reclamation’s position on California’s authority over the Central Valley Project and the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. 

The letter points to the Bureau’s recent assertion that the State Water Resources Control Board has no right to impose certain regulations on the operation of the Central Valley Project or to question decisions related to the impacts of Shasta Dam or Reservoir operations on endangered fish populations. Restore the Delta, Tribes, and other organizations warn that these actions could have significant consequences for communities, fish, and wildlife throughout the Bay-Delta watershed.

Citing California’s strong record of successfully challenging unlawful federal actions in court, the letter’s authors urge Attorney General Bonta to speak out against the Bureau’s federal overreach, saying these actions represent a troubling attempt to undermine California regulators while contributing to ongoing harm to the natural resources and communities that depend on them.

Read more about the coalition’s response to the Bureau of Reclamation’s letter here. 

STATEMENTS FROM COALITION MEMBERS:

Malissa Tayaba, Vice Chair, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians:

“Reclamation’s latest threats to undermine California’s authority over water management are about far more than jurisdiction—they are about who gets a voice in decisions that determine the future of our rivers, our fisheries, and our Tribal communities. Too often, Tribes have been excluded in these decisions and our communities have suffered.

When state and federal governments operate massive water projects on California’s rivers, those operations have profound consequences for Tribal Nations. The State Water Board’s authority to protect water quality and beneficial uses—including Tribal cultural uses—cannot be dismissed when inconvenient for a federal agency. Tribal cultural uses, fisheries, healthy waterways, and the survival of our communities are not secondary interests, and our Tribal Sovereignty cannot be treated as collateral damage in a jurisdictional fight.

The federal government must stop treating California’s water protections as an obstacle to be circumvented and start treating Tribes as sovereign governments whose rights, interests, and knowledge must be part of the decision-making process.”

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Executive Director, Restore the Delta:

“In the face of our changing climate, it is critical that we manage our water systems in a manner that is equitable and protective of ecosystems and communities. The recent actions by the Bureau threaten the State’s autonomy and ability to manage our water resources, threatening downstream tribes, communities, economies, and an increasingly fragile Delta ecosystem. We urge the Attorney General to take these threats seriously, and stand firm against authoritative actions that threaten California’s most precious resource, water.”

Eric Buescher, Managing Attorney, San Francisco Baykeeper:

“The Bureau’s most recent threats continue a pattern of action by the Trump Administration to ignore the State of California’s authority and obligation to protect the State’s natural resources and people,” said Eric Buescher, Managing Attorney at San Francisco Baykeeper. “Governor Newsom has stood up to unlawful and harmful federal overreach on so many fronts, but not on San Francisco Bay-Delta water. It is time for his administration to stop accommodating Trump in this area. Failing to do so harms Tribes, fish, communities, and ecosystems. There is no Newsom-Trump deal on this front that will benefit California.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
September 17, 2026

Senator Lee formally begins process to fast-track the destruction of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah – 9.17.26  Within a day, industry clamoring to exploit landscape

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Keri Gilliland, The Wilderness Society, (KGilliland@tws.org)
Chaitna Sinha, Conservation Codirector and Staff Attorney, Grand Canyon Trust; (970) 399-9565 (csinha@grandcanyontrust.org)
Amy Dominguez, Sierra Club, amy.dominguez@sierraclub.org, (385) 355-4631
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, kris@conservationlands.org, (505) 498-0212
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421, ascibetta@nrdc.org
Daniel Hernandez, National Parks Conservation Association, dhernandez@npca.org, (202) 573-2201

Washington, DC – Anti-public-lands crusader Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has taken a significant step towards fast-tracking the destruction of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, and all the things that make it a national treasure. This week, Lee added the recently issued Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinion regarding the Monument’s Management Plan to the Congressional Record. Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), following the entry of the opinion into the Congressional Record, a “resolution of disapproval” may be introduced (anticipated to occur soon), and then both chambers of Congress can expedite their votes and pass the measures by simple majority votes. If that happens and the resolution is signed into law by the President, the Bears Ears Monument Management Plan – which sets expectations for how the land will be managed for wildlife, outdoor access, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses – will be undone. This could undo the management plan developed through years of Tribal-federal collaboration and speed up the destruction of the landscape, while also blocking a “substantially the same” plan from being enacted in the future.

Sen. Lee’s move comes just days after 16 mining claims were filed in Bears Ears National Monument. The mining bans in both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante only lifted on Friday, September 11, and mining companies are already staking claims in the landscape. Since Trump’s proclamations in July, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, The Navajo Nation Council, the Navajo-Utah Commission, Native American Right Fund – NARF, The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Hopi Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, 37 U.S. Senators, 330 organizations, faith communities, veteran groups, businesses, and conservation organizations have opposed oppose the evisceration of protections for Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. Additional information appears below, along with quotes from conservation groups. 

“Senator Lee’s vision for Bears Ears National Monument is a landscape dominated by exploitation – mining, grazing, logging – if not outright sold to the highest bidder. We’re going to do everything we can to stop that from happening,” said Steve Bloch, Legal Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. “Bears Ears is a national treasure, and the monument management plan put the guardrails in place to make sure its remarkable cultural resources, unique plants and animals, and stunning, silent redrock canyons are there for current and future generations to enjoy. All of that is at risk if Lee’s attack succeeds and the monument management plan is undone.”                                                                                     

“Senator Lee is at it again,” said Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “After failing to eliminate the Grand Staircase-Escalante management plan earlier this year, Lee is now going after the Bears Ears plan instead. This plan, developed through years of public input and collaboration with Tribes, provides essential guidelines on activities that can occur in the monument. Its loss, coupled with Trump’s recent attack on the monument’s boundaries, would be a major blow to these irreplaceable public lands.”

“Bears Ears was already unlawfully reduced by 90%, but that is not enough for Senator Lee. Now he wants to eliminate the Bears Ears management plan, developed through years of public input and close collaboration with the Bears Ears Commission,” said Chaitna Sinha, Staff Attorney and Conservation Codirector at the Grand Canyon Trust. “This is despite the fact that, just last month, polling showed that a majority (66%) of Utahns said protections should be restored to all of Bears Ears and 82% say Native American tribes should have a strong role in managing their ancestral lands, including 76% of Republicans. Senator Lee needs to start listening to his constituents and stop his relentless attacks on our public lands. Utahns want Bears Ears protected.”

“This is a shameful attempt to erase decades of partnership between the U.S. government and the Tribes, the original stewards of this land,” said Charlie Luke, Utah state director at The Wilderness Society. “Instead, Senator Lee wants to open our public lands to the highest bidders, putting cultural resources, clean water and wildlife at risk while threatening our freedom to experience Bears Ears and hand it down intact to future generations.” 

“Bears Ears is a living cultural landscape and an irreplaceable part of Utah’s public lands. Its management plan reflects years of public input and historic collaboration with the Tribal Nations that have stewarded this landscape since time immemorial,” said Franque Bains, Director of the Sierra Club’s Utah Chapter. “Senator Lee’s effort would throw that work aside and put Bears Ears at even greater risk. Utahns have made clear that they want our public lands protected and Tribal Nations to have a strong voice in caring for their ancestral lands. Congress should listen to them and leave this plan in place.”

“This is yet another attack on Bears Ears,” said Bobby McEnaney, Senior Land Analyst at NRDC. “The Trump administration is already attempting to decimate the monument. Now Utah’s congressional delegation wants to erase the collaborative management plan that remains. The theme is clear: disregard for the Tribes, the science, and the public consensus that built Bears Ears’ protections. Congress should reject this effort outright.”

“Senator Lee’s irrational quest to annihilate Bears Ears and every other acre of public land goes against the values and priorities of the majority of Utahns and the rest of the country,” said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “A real leader listens to what the people want and stands up to corporate interests. That’s clearly not the case with Senator Lee and we trust the rest of Congress will oppose this madness and waste of attention and get to the business of protecting the public’s access to the national monuments, national parks, and other landscapes that Americans want.”

“After the president shrank Bears Ears National Monument by 91 percent, Sen. Mike Lee and other Utah leaders are now attempting to overturn the management plan of the 9 percent of what is left,” said Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert. “This is a deliberate undermining of Tribal sovereignty in one of the most culturally significant places in the country, and the recently filed mining claims give us a glimpse of what the future of the monument might be. Patagonia stands with the Tribal Nations, conservationists, activists and local communities speaking up to protect Bears Ears.” 

“No one in D.C. is more obsessed with tearing apart our public lands than Mike Lee,” said Melissa Cain at the Center for Biological Diversity. “His latest attack on Bears Ears is a pathetic insult to the five Tribal Nations and everyone else who worked tirelessly to secure protections for this national monument. These lands are a cherished part of our national and cultural heritage and they belong to every American. We’ll do everything in our power to ensure his cynical effort fails as spectacularly as his previous attempts have.”

Additional information about Senator Lee’s Attack: 

In April 2026, Senator Lee requested an opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about whether Congress can overturn the current Bears Ears Monument Management Plan; on August 17, the GAO released its opinion that Congress can undo the plan. Earlier this year, using the same mechanism, Utah’s federal delegation, led by Senator Lee and Representative Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02), attempted to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan. Tribal Nations, hunters and anglers, recreationists, local businesses, scientists, faith leaders, and members of the public from across Utah and the country spoke out loudly against this unfounded attack on one of the nation’s public lands gems. Lee and Maloy’s fast-track attack failed on June 12, 2026.

Just a month later, on July 13, 2026, President Trump illegally decimated both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments by reducing each of them by over 90%. Significantly, until new management plans are finalized, the existing plans for each National Monument remain in place. That means the current plans will still manage activities in the monuments, with at least one major exception: mining. Trump’s proclamations directed that on September 11, 2026, the lands he cut out of both monuments be opened to new mining claims. Conservation groups challenged Trump’s illegal reductions of both Monuments on Tuesday, Sept. 9 in Federal Court.

Additional information about Bears Ears National Monument 

Beloved by Utahns and Americans, Bears Ears National Monument is a region of extraordinary cultural significance and natural diversity. On December 28, 2016, President Obama used his authority under the Antiquities Act to establish Bears Ears National Monument, protecting both a cultural landscape that has been home to Tribal Nations from time immemorial and some of the wildest redrock country in the nation. The proclamation elevated the voices of Tribal Nations that have ancestral ties to the region. Nearly 100,000 archaeological and cultural sites were protected by the proclamation, including House on Fire and Moon House.

The Bears Ears proposal was led by the five Tribal Nations that would later comprise the “Bears Ears Commission:” the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Ute Indian Tribe. On December 4, 2017, President Trump ignored millions of public comments and in a brazenly illegal act repealed Bears Ears National Monument, replacing it with two much smaller, non-contiguous units totaling around 200,000 acres (an 85% reduction). His unprecedented action left rare archaeological sites, unique flora and fauna, and stunning wildlands without protection from looting, uranium mining, oil and gas drilling, and off-road vehicle damage. 

Thankfully, on October 8, 2021, President Biden signed a proclamation restoring Bears Ears National Monument to its full, original boundaries—plus an additional 11,200 acres added to the Trump-era Indian Creek unit. National monuments are overwhelmingly popular. In 2022, the BLM and U.S. Forest Service, in collaboration with the Bears Ears Commission, began the process of developing a management plan to govern the Bears Ears National Monument. This was a crucial partnership to ensure that the monument is managed for its unique and extraordinary values, including the wealth of sacred objects and places of importance to the Tribal Nations of the Commission. 

The Bears Ears Commission played a central role in developing the 2025 Bears Ears Resource Management Plan, an unprecedented collaborative framework that brings Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and western science together to guide stewardship of Bears Ears National Monument. Following passage of the Resource Management Plan, the Commission worked with the agencies to implement the Resource Management Plan, up until President Trump purported to eliminate the Commission in his July 2026 proclamation.

About the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The CRA is a federal statute enacted in March 1996 that requires federal agencies to submit “rules” to Congress for a mandatory review period “before they may take effect.” If Congress votes to overturn, or “disapprove,” the rule, it “may not be reissued in substantially the same form. . . .” The BLM has long maintained that its land management plans are not “rules” subject to the CRA. Other federal land management agencies, including the USFS,  and National Park Service, have similarly not submitted their land management plans to Congress under the CRA.

However, emboldened by a series of non-binding Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinions, Republican members of Congress have embraced the novel theory that federal land management plans are in fact “rules” subject to the CRA. The 119th Congress has passed seven CRA resolutions overturning previously finalized land management plans or other types of public lands management decisions. The GAO issued a decision regarding the Bears Ears Monument Management Plan on August 17, 2026.

###
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards this world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

The post Senator Lee formally begins process to fast-track the destruction of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah – 9.17.26  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

In Colorado, the U.S. Forest Service plans to let Pitkin County take over management of the Maroon Bells Scenic Area because it can no longer cover a $300,000 annual shortfall.

It plans to do this using a legal shortcut known as a categorical exclusion, which lets federal agencies skip the environmental review and public comment process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for decisions the government has already determined won’t significantly affect the environment. According to the Center for Western Priorities’ Lilly Bock-Brownstein, this could set a dangerous precedent for public lands.

The specific exclusion the Forest Service intends to use was written for small permits like mountain bike passes and backcountry ski guiding, not full management of one of the West’s most popular and iconic recreation areas.

Other areas have received much more thorough review than is proposed for the Maroon Bells. In 2024, the Forest Service proposed handing management of Sweetwater Lake, an 832-acre site in the same national forest, to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It prepared a full environmental impact statement—a review that’s still underway. Maroon Bells would get none of that scrutiny.

Pitkin County has the third-highest per capita income in the United States and a dedicated open-space tax through 2040—a best-case scenario for this kind of deal. But if the precedent is set for categorical exclusions to be used as a shortcut to transfer land management, the same could happen at any underfunded site, in counties with fewer resources and less commitment to conservation, which could lead to logging, mining, and drilling.

According to Bock-Brownstein, the solution for budget and staffing shortfalls should be to properly fund the Forest Service.

“The Maroon Bells belong to everyone, and the public has a right to be part of the decision about how it is managed,” she wrote.

Quick hits Trump’s data center push runs into a new demand for environmental review

Politico

Forest Service plan would cut the public out of Maroon Bells management decision

Westwise

Landowners across Texas are suing Trump over the Big Bend border construction

Outside

Opinion: Saving the Sagebrush Sea

Ground Shift

2,100 acres of land acquired to restore Colorado’s critically threatened lesser prairie-chickens

PBS

Trump administration spent $9.5 billion last year on employee leave, driven by DOGE-era cuts

NBC News

Off-roading on federal lands in Colorado could expand with expected Trump reversal

Colorado Sun

Park Service steamrolls through review of Trump’s arch

New York Times

Quote of the day

We need to modernize a system developed for a different era to respond to climate change, invasive species, increasingly severe wildfire, accelerating habitat loss, and evolving public expectations.”

—Mark Salvo, senior conservation advisor at Oregon Natural Desert Association, Ground Shift

Picture This @nationalparkservice

Put a bird on it.

Alright, folks. Tackle today like a hungry magpie or or similar cleaner bird perched on the head of a large mammal: focused, determined, and apparently willing to eat whatever’s crawling around up there.

You could also channel your inner elk or bison. Stand tall. Chew thoughtfully. Stare off into the distance as if you’ve just remembered an important meeting. And then crush those goals so thoroughly you’ll be saying, “Elk yeah.” Which is not a phrase anyone has ever needed to say, but here we are.

Fun fact: large herbivores like elk and bison are often visited by “cleaner birds,” such as magpies, which pick parasites from their skin or hair. The elk gets groomed. The magpie gets dinner. Everyone’s a winner. Maybe not the parasite.

NPS Photos

 

(Featured image: Maroon Lake at Maroon Bells. Photo by John Fowler, Flickr)

The post Forest Service plan would cut the public out of Maroon Bells management decision appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Star Energy, the oil and gas operator with multiple UK onshore sites, is planning to expand its portfolio, according to company accounts.

Singleton oil site. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Interim results for the first half of 2026 reported:

“we are seeking to materially increase profitable production through a combination of acquisitions and the development of our existing in-field and near-field opportunities.”

Chief executive Ross Glover said:

“we have been actively evaluating a number of acquisition opportunities, both in the North Sea and more widely, and have committed management and technical resource to this process.

“We are encouraged by the range of opportunities we are seeing, but to date we have not identified a transaction where the combination of asset quality, risk and valuation will provide the level of return we require for shareholders.”

Star Energy said its “core UK oil and gas business remains fundamental to our strategy.”

It said it intended to use the £8.5m proceeds from a fundraise in May 2026 to increase profitable production. The company said it was focussing on operated or non-operated portfolios of up to 2,500 boepd [barrels of oil equivalent per day].

Star Energy’s net production in the first half year averaged 1,866 boepd. This was down from 1,894 boepd in the same period in 2025.

The company said production had been “adversely affected” by “temporary operational and reliability issues across parts of the portfolio, together with the natural variability associated with operating mature fields”.

But production in July and August 2026 was “materially higher” than the first-half average, following “the resolution of a number of these issues and the completion of optimisation activities”, the company said.

Singleton

Star Energy also blamed delays in the grid connection at the Singleton gas-to-wire project in West Sussex for the fall in production rates.

It said the project, which involves generating electricity from waste gas, would add 74 boepd and reduce routine flaring.

Electricity would be transmitted 1.4km by cable from the Singleton site to a grid connection on the A286 road.

Star Energy said all major equipment had been delivered to the site during the first half of 2026. Export cabling had been laid to the substation and gas processing equipment installed and commissioned on site.

The company said:

“We are working closely with the Distribution Network Operator to complete the final stages of the grid connection, following which final commissioning will be undertaken. First production is currently expected in early October 2026.”

Other  onshore developments

Official figures show Star Energy operated 27 formal producing oil and gas fields onshore in the UK in 2026. The fields comprised 18 producing oil and 1 producing gas. There are also 8 oil fields where there had been no production in 2026..

The company said it had invested £3.2 million in oil and gas assets in the first half of 2026, including the Singleton project (see above). Net cash capital expenditure for 2026 was expected to be £6.6million, the company said.

Investment was being targeted to offset what Star Energy called “natural declines” and improve operating reliabilities. The accounts described work at:

Stockbridge, Hampshire: conversion of well to water injector

Bletchingley, Surrey: installation of gas generator

Welton, Lincolnshire: installation of replacement separator

Glentworth, Lincolnshire: development of the western extension of the Mexborough reservoir that could add 162 bopd, Star Energy said. It said technical and regulatory work is progressing to maintain the site as “a development-ready opportunity”.

Key figures for six months to June 2026

Interim unaudited results released on 169/2026

Revenue: £23.2m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £18.3m)

Oil sales: £22.5m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £17.80m)

Profit before tax: £0.6m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £4.5m)

Profit/(loss) for the period: £2.361m (Six months to 30 June 2025: (£4.069m))

Oil and gas adjusted EBITDA: £6.2m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £5.5m)

Operating cashflow before working capital movements: £6.0m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £4.8m)

Net cash/(debt): £4.6m (Six months to 30 June 2025: (£4.3m))

Cash and cash equivalents: £15.7m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £7.6m)

Loss on commodities hedge: £5m

Capital expenditure in oil and gas: £3.2m.

Expected net cash capital expenditure for 2026: £6.6m

Proceeds to Star Energy of sale of Croation geothermal subsidiary IGeoPen: £1.1m

May 2026 fundraise (net of expenses: £8.5m

Average net production: 1,866 boe/d (Six months to 30 June 2025: 1,894 boe/d

Expected full year production for 2026: 1,900-1,950 boe/d

Net assets: £45.8m (Six months to 30 June 2025: £34.8m)

A legal shortcut, rewritten last year, is about to decide who runs one of Colorado’s most visited landscapes

Update: On Friday, September 18, the U.S. Forest Service announced that it will conduct a 15-day comment period before signing off on a special use permit for Pitkin County to manage operations at the Maroon Bells Scenic Area. The Forest Service has not yet released a map or an acreage number for what the permit would cover.

The Maroon Bells Scenic Area draws more than 200,000 visitors a year and is the gateway to the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness, one of Colorado’s original wilderness areas. In May of this year, Pitkin County applied for a special use permit to take over day-to-day management of Maroon Bells, starting with the 2027 season. The White River National Forest says it can no longer cover a roughly $300,000 annual shortfall at the site and has told the county to finalize an agreement by fall or it will turn to a private concessionaire instead.

To authorize the management change, the U.S. Forest Service plans to use a categorical exclusion: a legal shortcut that lets federal agencies skip the environmental review and public comment process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on decisions the government has already determined won’t significantly affect the environment. The rules governing that shortcut were rewritten last year to remove the public notice step that it previously included, meaning this management change could occur with no opportunity for public input.

Pitkin County has partnered with the Forest Service at the Maroon Bells for decades, and it’s stepping in because the federal government says it can no longer afford to manage the site at a $300,000 loss. The county, which is home to Aspen, undoubtedly has the knowledge, ability, and resources to manage the area responsibly for recreation and conservation, but the process still deserves scrutiny. The use of a categorical exclusion to bypass the NEPA process means the federal government is handing off management of a major recreation area to a local entity without thoroughly examining the potential environmental and social impacts and without providing the public that owns the land with a chance to share their concerns about the plan.

What even is a categorical exclusion? As outlined in NEPA, categorical exclusions can be used for categories of activities when the government has determined that there would be “no significant impact” to the environment from the proposed activity covered by the categorical exclusion. Agencies can also adopt each other’s categorical exclusions. Previous administrations from both political parties have used both of these approaches for a variety of purposes.

But the second Trump administration is broadening the use of categorical exclusions, in many cases trying to use them as blanket exemptions from following the law at all, or greatly expanding the acreage to which they apply. To lay the groundwork for this approach, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) repealed its implementing regulations for NEPA via a rule that was finalized in January 2026. Among other things, this repeal included removing the 30-day public comment period for proposed categorical exclusions. Essentially, the public will have to take the government at its word that the activities covered by the proposed categorical exclusion will have no significant impact on the environment and will have no opportunity to raise concerns or offer evidence that the activity would, in fact, have an impact on the environment.

In April 2026, following the rule repeal, CEQ issued new guidance on the use of categorical exclusions, framing its approach as “CE-first” and promoting categorical exclusions as “a core feature of NEPA” rather than a process to create defined and limited exceptions. CEQ chair Katherine Scarlett described the guidance as intended to “help agencies identify an off-ramp from unnecessary levels of environmental review” during the permitting process.

Following these policy changes, the Trump administration has wasted no time putting it into practice. For example, in August, the Bureau of Land Management finalized an exclusion for forest and woodland density management that raised the area covered from 70 acres to 5,000.

The exclusion the Forest Service intends to use at the Maroon Bells, USDA-29c-USFS, covers the “issuance of a new authorization or amendment of an existing authorization for recreation special uses that occur on existing roads or trails, in existing facilities, in existing recreation sites, or in areas where such activities are allowed.” The examples written into the rule are all small permits or contracts, including mountain bike permits on trails already open to bikes, backcountry ski guiding, a one-time event at an existing facility, and a concession contract to run a campground that was already operating. None of the examples include full management of one of the West’s most popular and iconic recreation areas.

Shuttle to Maroon Bells Trailhead, Tony Webster

Until last year, the Forest Service’s NEPA procedures put two checks on that shortcut: The agency had to notify the public before deciding an exclusion applied; scoping, its regulations said, “is required for all Forest Service proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded.” And before using an exclusion, officials had to weigh a list of resource conditions that specifically named congressionally designated wilderness. In July 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, the agency that houses the U.S. Forest Service) removed those procedures entirely, folding what survived into a single department-wide rule finalized this April. Whether a sensitive resource is enough to disqualify a project from the shortcut is now left to the responsible official’s sole discretion on a case-by-case basis.

Why this is wrong for Maroon Bells

The Maroon Bells agreement is wider-reaching than the permits that the categorical exclusion option was written for. The county’s ordinance authorizing the agreement says the Forest Service “has proposed issuing a Special Use Permit to authorize Pitkin County to assume responsibility for day-to-day operations, maintenance, visitor staffing, and natural resource stewardship at the Maroon Bells Scenic Area, while the federal government retains ultimate ownership and overarching regulatory oversight of the land.” The draft permit does not include an acreage number.

A concession contract to run a campground covers one campground, but this agreement covers operations, staffing, and resource stewardship seemingly across the entire scenic area. Professor Mark Squillace, who teaches natural resources law at the University of Colorado, made the same point in comments to the county and the Forest Service, saying that the exclusion “does not allow the wholesale transfer of management responsibility over the entire Maroon Bells Scenic Area.”

In 2024, the Forest Service proposed handing management of Sweetwater Lake, an 832-acre recreation area also within White River National Forest, to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. But for that transfer, the Forest Service announced it would prepare a full environmental impact statement, the most thorough review NEPA provides, and it ran a formal scoping process with public meetings and a comment period. That review is still underway. Sweetwater Lake received the most rigorous analysis available, while Maroon Bells would receive none.

Hiking above Sweetwater Lake, Matt Tomlinson

The risk of this approach may land back on Pitkin County. The Forest Service is not required to produce any NEPA documentation for this category, so there will be no federal record explaining the decision. If the permit and lack of environmental review are challenged, the county’s operating plan, reservation system, and new fee structure would sit in limbo while challenges play out in court.

Pitkin County’s commissioners and Open Space department have been careful stewards and clearly want what is best for the Maroon Bells. But a public process protects everyone’s stake in the site regardless of who holds office in the county. And the implications for this type of shortcut carry far beyond one county.

Beyond Pitkin County

The entire reason for this management change is money. Years of budget and staffing shortfalls have left the Forest Service unable to keep up the restrooms, trails, campgrounds, and visitor services at the site. The remedy for this issue should be to properly fund the Forest Service. National public lands belong to all Americans, and it should not be up to local governments to decide how they operate and who can visit them, as CWP noted in a previous blog post about this issue.

Pitkin County has the third-highest per capita income in the United States and an open space program funded by a dedicated property tax through 2040. It is close to a best-case scenario for this kind of arrangement with the federal government. But the precedent it sets will not be limited to counties with the resources and political will to properly manage areas like Maroon Bells. If a categorical exclusion can alter the management of a landscape this prominent with no public process, the same shortcut is available at any underfunded site, in counties with fewer resources, less capacity to run an operation at this scale, and less commitment to managing it for recreation and conservation. If the first question for managing public lands is “does it turn a profit?” then counties may quickly turn to logging, mining, and drilling rather than responsible stewardship.

West Maroon Creek, Steven dosRemedios

The Forest Service should complete an environmental analysis and open a public comment period before any permit is signed. Waiting for an environmental review is a smaller price than years of legal uncertainty at the Maroon Bells, and the next underfunded Forest Service site may not have a wealthy county willing to step up and take care of it.

The Maroon Bells belong to everyone, and the public has a right to be part of the decision about how it is managed.

The post Forest Service plan would cut the public out of Maroon Bells management decision appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
September 16, 2026

First Mining Claims Filed in Lands Cut from Bears Ears National Monument – 9.16.26 Within a day, industry clamoring to exploit landscape

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org
Keri Gilliland, The Wilderness Society, (KGilliland@tws.org)
Chaitna Sinha, Conservation Codirector and Staff Attorney, Grand Canyon Trust; (970) 399-9565 (csinha@grandcanyontrust.org)
Amy Dominguez, Sierra Club, amy.dominguez@sierraclub.org, (385) 355-4631
Kris Deutschman, Conservation Lands Foundation, kris@conservationlands.org, (505) 498-0212
Andrew Scibetta, NRDC, (202) 289-2421, ascibetta@nrdc.org
Daniel Hernandez, National Parks Conservation Association, dhernandez@npca.org, (202) 573-2201

SAN JUAN COUNTY, UT – 16 new mining claims (see map) have been filed in previously protected land in Bears Ears National Monument. These lands became subject to mining claims on Friday, September 11 – 60 days after President Trump decimated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by shrinking these national monuments by over 90%. All 16 claims were recorded on September 11 by noon; it took until Tuesday, September 15 for them to appear in the San Juan County Recorder’s Office’s online system.

The new mining claims (see map) are in two general areas: Lockhart Basin & near the Easy Peasy Mine (the mine has been re-buried). Three Claims were filed by George W. Schultz in the Lockhart Basin area. 13 claims were filed by Kimmerle Mining; two of these claims are adjustments to the Easy Peasy claims first filed after Trump’s 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and 11 are new claims nearby. Kyle Kimmerle (a Managing Member of Kimmerle Mining) was also a plaintiff in one of the cases filed challenging President Biden’s 2021 restoration of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. On July 14, 2026, Kimmerle Mining illegally attempted to file seven mining claims prior to the Sept. 11 deadline. Additional information appears below, along with quotes from Tribal leaders and conservation groups. 

“This rush to locate new mining claims in Bears Ears National Monument reinforces the need to be vigilant over the next several years while we work to undo Trump’s illegal actions and restore both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments.“said Hanna Larsen, Staff Attorney at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “As evidenced by the Easy Peasy Mine, claims like these often lead to real and long-lasting damage to the very qualities that make these monuments so special.”

“Immediately after the mining ban was lifted, 16 claims were filed on the lands removed from Bears Ears National Monument,” said Charlie Luke, Utah state director at The Wilderness Society. “This is not a hypothetical threat, it’s the reality of what happens when national monument protections are gutted. We cannot allow special interests to turn a profit on Bears Ears at the expense of future generations.” 

“The speed with which the mining industry moved to stake claims following the dismantling of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments demonstrates the real-world consequences of stripping protections from some of America’s most important landscapes,” said Bobby McEnaney, Senior Lands Analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “This sequence of events underscores exactly why Bears Ears was originally established and why this landscape deserves lasting protection. These mining claims amount to a virtual giveaway of public lands.”

“The administration put some of America’s greatest heritage at risk when it opened up Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante for mining,” said Chaitna Sinha, Staff Attorney and Conservation Codirector for the Grand Canyon Trust. “The 16 new mining claims in Bears Ears follow a poll in which the vast majority of Utahns said protections should be restored to all of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, including 52% of Republicans. 82% of those polled said that Native American tribes should have a strong role in managing lands they hold sacred. It’s a shame our elected officials aren’t listening to the people who elected them. Most Utah voters want these monuments restored to their original boundaries and want tribes to be partners in their management.” 

“Within days of the illegal reduction of these treasured public lands, industry interests are already lining up to exploit them,” said Franque Bains, Chapter Director of the Sierra Club in Utah. “This rush makes clear the consequences of the Trump administration illegally stripping protections from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante: Irreplaceable cultural landscapes and public lands are being put at risk for corporate profit. We will continue working alongside Tribal nations, local communities, and our partners to defend these landscapes and restore the protections they deserve.” 

“Sixteen new mining claims within days of the deadline is proof that this was never about public access — it’s about clearing the way for extraction,” said Chris Hill, CEO of the Conservation Lands Foundation. “BLM Director Pearce and Governor Cox like to talk about keeping lands open for the public, but when mining companies raced to stake claims on sacred and treasured landscapes, they gave them the green light. This tells you who they’re really working for. A recent Grand Canyon Trust poll found that 52% of Utah Republicans want protections restored to all of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, and 82% say tribes should have a strong role in managing the lands they hold sacred. Utahns have made themselves clear — it’s their leaders who refuse to listen. We’re going to keep fighting, in court and in communities, until these monuments and the integrity of the entire public lands system are restored.”

“The arguments about access in Bears Ears were clearly about energy extraction, and mining companies have wasted no time staking new claims,” said Sara Cawley, Energy Director at the National Parks Conservation Association. “Three of the claims are located in the Lockhart Basin, a spectacular landscape that contains numerous cultural and archaeological sites and sits next to Canyonlands National Park’s eastern boundary. National park units and their surrounding landscapes are no place for energy development, but outdated laws elevate mining above all other uses on these lands. We will continue to fight to prevent these special places, surrounding communities, and sovereign tribes from being undermined and exploited.”

Background Information on other Mining claims: 

Under President Trump’s proclamations decimating Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante by over 90%, mining claims could not be staked until 60 days after the date of the proclamation: Friday, Sept. 11, 2026. Despite this, on July 14, 2026, Kimmerle Mining filed 7 mining claims (see map) with the San Juan County (Utah) Recorder’s Office. Kimmerle Mining previously filed mining claims after Trump’s 2017 reduction of Bears Ears and excavated a partially reclaimed mine shaft on one of the claims – the so-called Easy Peasy claim (this mine has been re-buried); Kyle Kimmerle (a Managing Member of Kimmerle Mining) was also a plaintiff in one of the cases filed in the District of Utah challenging President Biden’s 2021 restoration of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments.  

Two mining claims were also filed in Grand Staircase-Escalante, less than one month after Trump’s attack. On August 6, 2026, Craig Rosequist filed two mining claims (see map) with the Kane County (Utah) Recorder’s Office in areas cut out of the monument by the Trump proclamations. According to public records, Rosequist previously located several mining claims in neighboring Washington County, Utah. The Bureau of Land Management should reject claims filed in both national monuments prior to Sept. 11. 

• Map of 2026 claims in Bear Ears, showing the 2021 and 2026 Monument Boundaries and noting the location of the Easy Peasy Mine, created by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)
• Map of 2026 Claims in Grand Staircase-Escalante, created by SUWA
• Photo and video assets of Kimmerle’s Easy Peasy Mine and surrounding claims, please credit Tim Peterson. 
  • Gallery & Gdrive 
  • Video b-roll

Background information about the national monument reductions:

• Statements from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal coalitions
• SUWA Statement on Trump’s Illegal Reductions of Grand Staircase-Escalante & Bears Ears National Monuments
• Full Statement and Quotes Tracking
• Maps of the reductions
• Reporter Background Memo on National Monuments

###
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org.

The post First Mining Claims Filed in Lands Cut from Bears Ears National Monument – 9.16.26 appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Latino Conservation Week kicked off this week at Ironwood Forest National Monument near Tucson—one of six national monuments the Trump administration has identified as candidates for size reduction to open the way for mining and drilling.

Ironwood Forest protects 129,000 acres of Sonoran Desert habitat and has served as a buffer against mining expansion since its 2000 designation. ASARCO’s Silver Bell mine has pursued a years-long push to expand into the monument to boost copper production.

“Public lands belong to all of us, not special interests,” said Rebecca Perez, Arizona conservation manager for The Wilderness Society. “Yet this summer, the Trump administration virtually eliminated Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments, making them vulnerable to mining and drilling.”

The threats to public lands extend beyond monument boundaries. The Center for Western Priorities’ Keep Parks Public campaign was in Tucson last month for a live podcast recording about damage to cultural sites and fragmentation of wildlife habitat caused by border wall construction. You can listen to the podcast here.

“We all must join together and understand that this is our land,” said Christine Flanagan, president of Friends of Ironwood Forest. “And as public land owners, we need to start acting together like we own this land.”

Events across the United States are being held through Sunday, September 20. Find an event near you.

Quick hits Tohono O’odham fight border wall on sacred, sovereign lands

High Country News

California lawmakers join together in a bipartisan push against proposed Yosemite land transfer

Business Journal

Latino Conservation Week launches with call to protect public lands

Inside Climate News | KVOA

Studies link New Mexico drilling to radiation, air pollution, health risks

High Country News

Yellowstone National Park visits decline for 3rd month

Billings Gazette | AOL

Drought leads to ‘unprecedented’ black bear conflicts in Wyoming

WyoFile

Opinion: Wildfire strategy doesn’t need a winner

The Conversation

Major Forest Service policies could be changing. Here’s what’s at stake

Montana Free Press

Quote of the day

We will not let this destroy our sacred sites, our burial sites, our holy places, the places of our ancestors. We will not let it destroy our environment. We will not let it further divide our people. We will not let it divide our reservation.”

—Tohono O’odham Chairman Verlon Jose, High Country News

Picture This @yellowstonenps

It’s migration time! But not all birds leave Yellowstone – several bird species stay in the park a bit longer and approximately 50 species reside here year-round.

Osprey usually stay through November. These birds are known for their excellent fishing skills – they dive into the water to catch fish with their sharp talons. Barbed pads on the soles of their feet help them grip slippery fish that can weigh up to 50% of their body weight!

Planning to go birding during your Yellowstone visit? Download our bird checklist from our website at: go.nps.gov/YELLbirds (link available in our bio)

 

(Featured image: Ironwood Forest National Monument near Tucson, Arizona. Photo by Bob Wick, BLM California. Flickr)

The post Latino Conservation Week highlights attacks on public lands appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Gas drilling and lower-volume fracking near the North York Moors National Park should not go-ahead because of flaws in the official environmental assessment, a consultation has revealed.

Photo: DrillOrDrop

The Environment Agency (EA) has said it is minded to grant an environmental permit to Europa Oil & Gas for the proposal at Burniston, near Scarborough.

But participants in a final public consultation urged the EA to withdraw its draft decision. They said the EA should refuse or defer the permit until issues had been fully addressed through “robust, site-specific and independently verifiable evidence”.

The EA’s draft decision document, published on 3 August 2026, has been criticised for containing incorrect, inconsistent, incomplete and missing information, a DrillOrDrop analysis has found.

There are also concerns that it relies excessively on information that would be supplied after approval and that permit conditions were being proposed to overcome a lack of information about environmental risk.

“Questions unanswered”

Burniston Parish Council has asked the EA to reconsider a dozen issues and urged it to organise a village public meeting to listen to local concerns, before making a final decision.

The council’s chair, Richard Parsons, said in a consultation response:

“Burniston Parish Council do not consider that the current draft decision provides sufficient reassurance that the proposed activities can be carried out without unacceptable risks to groundwater, the wider water environment, air quality, local communities and the sensitive environment surrounding the site”.

Cllr Parsons added:

“Many of the questions still have not been answered, leaving too many doubts and a lack of any factual evidence that proves the environmental safety of this community.”

He said:

“The draft decision has not yet demonstrated that this high threshold has been met. Crucial information, that should clarify many of the questions that have remained unanswered by the applicant, remains unavailable, despite this project having already been in the public domain for well over two years.”

The EA has a responsibility “to be satisfied that the proposed activities can be carried out without causing an unacceptable risk to people or the environment”, Cllr Parsons said.

He said:

“If the Environment Agency cannot presently determine, from the available evidence, whether groundwater, air quality and other environmental receptors will be adequately protected, then the legal and technical basis for granting the permit should be reconsidered”.

Planning permission for the Burniston proposal was refused by North Yorkshire Council earlier this year. Europa has said it is considering an appeal. The environmental permit is separate from the planning process.

Incorrect and unclear information

Europa intends to use a lower-volume form of fracking to release gas at Burniston from the primary target, the Carboniferous sandstones. The company has said it plans four fracking treatments, each pumping 300m3-500m3 of fluid into the reservoir at pressures high enough to fracture rocks.

The EA described this operation as a proppant squeeze or reservoir stimulation and referred in the draft decision to “squeezing a small volume of oil-based fluid” into the formation (p4, Reservoir Stimulation).

We asked the EA for confirmation that oil-based fluid would be used in the proppant squeeze and what the regulator meant by “small”.

The EA told us

“The reference to the use of an oil-based fluid is a typographical error.

“No oil-based muds or fluids are proposed to be used at Burniston (Cloughton-2), and this will be corrected in the final version of the decision document.

“As no oil-based fluid is proposed, questions relating to the proportion of oil-based fluid injected are not applicable. The correction does not alter the assessment of the proposed operation.”

We asked for clarification about whether the final document would refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. If that wasn’t the case, we asked again how the EA defined “small”.

The EA replied:

“We can confirm that the final decision document will not refer to a “small volume” of any fluid used in the proppant squeeze. The reference to oil-based fluid was included in error and will be removed from the final decision document.”

At the time of writing, the EA has not corrected the references in the draft decision document, which remains open for consultation until 23 September 2026.

The draft permit also referred incorrectly to plans to “stimulate oil production”. The Burniston proposal is for gas appraisal, not production.

No 3D seismic survey

The EA acknowledged in its draft decision document that Europa had not yet carried out a 3D seismic survey around the proposed wellsite.

It commented that this was “unusual”. But it said 2D surveys covering the site and 3D surveys to the south and west provided “sufficient information to enable a decision to be reached”.

This has concerned some consultation participants.

Burniston Parish Council said:

“the lack of any such data means that no one knows, with any certainty the construction of the land below us and the effect hydraulic fracturing will have. Europa Oil and Gas Ltd have not provided the data and appear to expect the Environment Agency to make crucial decisions on the environmental impact of the process without providing the evidence.

“As there is no current seismological data in this application, the effect cannot be predicted. No-one knows if the land at the site and surrounding it, subject to the environment licence application, is suitable nor what harm may be caused.”

One consultation participant said:

“Because the applicant has failed to provide a robust seismic risk assessment that rules out threats to nearby residential structures, it is unsafe to grant this permit.”

One participant said:

“I ask the EA to explain how it has established that the geological structure is sufficiently understood to permit a high-pressure proppant squeeze.”

The EA has said no proppant squeeze would be authorized in the secondary targets, the Kirkham Abbey and Brotherton Limestone, because insufficient information had been provided by Europa.

But one participant asked:

“If the geological information was insufficient to permit stimulation of the secondary formations, I ask the EA to explain why it considers the geological and geo-mechanical information sufficient to establish safe fracture containment within the primary Carboniferous sandstone targets.”

Europa told DrillOrDrop it was waiting to see whether it got planning permission through an appeal before arranging the 3D seismic survey. The company also confirmed that no investor was in place to pay for the 3D survey. Europa announced nearly a year ago it was seeking investment of about £800,000 to fund the 3D survey.

The company also said the EA had set a pre-operational measure in the permit (8) which requires the verification of local fractures and faults through the drilling process.

Another consultation participant recommended the EA delay the permit decision until a hydraulic fracture plan (HFP) was published for Burniston. This is required before any form of fracking is carried out onshore and aims to predict and mitigate any induced seismic activity.

The participant told the EA:

“I urge you to insist on seeing the Hydraulic Fracture Plan before making a final decision on this application and to carefully examine the fundamental information it contains to determine its environmental acceptability.”

Chris Garforth, chair of the Frack Free Coastal Communities steering group, said:

“We are concerned that the EA is prepared to issue the Environmental Permit without having seen evidence of faults / geological structures around the well bore and fracking sites. It seems crazy to us that the EA can tell them it’s fine to go ahead and drill, then collect the data from the drilling which will show whether or not it is safe to frack.

“Reading the decision document and the draft permit, it is clear that the EA is prepared to issue the permit and for Europa to carry out the first phase of the development (drill the well) before Europa draw up a plan for monitoring seismicity, or provide an updated Gas Waste Management Plan (Schedule S1.3B in the draft permit) – both of which are major concerns for the local community and on which they sought assurances in the EA’s consultation last year on the Environmental Permit application.

“The EA even admit that the absence of 3D data is ‘unusual’ but that has not stopped them from saying it’s safe to go ahead and drill.

“The timescales indicated in the Schedule also suggest that there could be several months delay between (a) drilling and (b) fracking and testing, giving the lie to the bland schedule of phases set out in the planning application.”

See more details on the HFP at the end of this article.

Behind closed doors

Professor Garforth said his group was also concerned about lack of transparency on the seismic survey:

“By the time Europa do carry out the seismic survey, the data/data analysis will not be in the public domain nor subject to public scrutiny.

“They will only do the survey if they get planning permission (i.e. after a successful appeal), by which time the EA is already likely to have granted them an Environmental Permit.

“The NSTA, which will consider the Hydraulic Fracture Plan, does its work behind closed doors without the public consultation and scrutiny required of planning authorities and the EA.”

Burniston Parish Council has also raised concerns about openness.

It said:

“The reasoning, evidence and uncertainties must be transparent.”

It said the EA should:

• Make evidence supporting the draft decision publicly available
• Clearly identify significant assumptions
• Explicitly acknowledge uncertainties
• Publish responses to substantive objections
• Make monitoring data accessible to the public
• Consult the public on any future variation of the permit

Several substantial responses to the public consultation are not accessible to the public because they were sent as attachments and not published online.

Uncertainty

One consultant participant said:

“[the] Draft decision seems premature as underlying uncertainties have yet to be resolved”.

Burniston Parish Council said the permit should “not depend excessively on information to be supplied after approval” (see also 3D seismic survey and HFP).

The council asked the EA to identify every matter that remains to be addressed after the permit is granted and explain why that information was not required before the draft decision was made.

It said the EA should not rely on modelling, predictions and monitoring by or interpreted by the operator. The council called for the publication of independent verification and results.

The council said:

“The site is located in a sensitive coastal area, close to residential communities and important environmental and landscape assets. In such circumstances, uncertainty should not be treated as evidence that no risk exists.

“Where there are credible uncertainties concerning groundwater, geological pathways, well integrity, emissions, waste management and the consequences of the proposed stimulation operation, the Environment Agency should apply a genuinely precautionary approach.”

Another consultation participant raised Europa’s estimate that 50%-70% of fracture fluid would remain in the rock formation. The participant asked:

“how has the EA demonstrated that retained fluid cannot migrate through natural fractures, previously unidentified faults or artificially created fractures into other formations or groundwater-bearing strata?”

Inconsistency

One consultation participant complained about inconsistent figures for the height of the permitted fractures.

In the draft decision document, the EA said the fractures would range from 65m-80m vertically.

But elsewhere in the document, the EA said the proppant squeeze was designed to extend 85m above and below perforations in the wellbore.

Specific concerns

Burniston Partish Council identified other concerns including:

Groundwater pollution risk: The EA must explain clearly how it had resolved its earlier objection because of an unacceptable risk of groundwater pollution. It must also demonstrate how it was satisfied that the well would provide adequate protection through the operational life and after abandonment.

Uncertainty over fracking: The EA should demonstrate that it had adequately assessed the likely extent and orientation of induced fractures and issues including the possibility of induced seismicity and fractures interacted with natural faults.

Lack of baseline data: Before any work began, the EA should ensure that robust, independent and publicly-available baseline monitoring was undertaken on surface and groundwater, methane, air quality, naturally-occurring geological contaminates.

Methane emissions: The EA should not assume emissions will be negligible because the operation is described as temporary.

Flaring waste gas: Flaring proposals during testing and production failed “to meet strict modern interpretations of minimising environmental waste”. The parish council said:

“The public should be able to see the evidence on which the Environment Agency has concluded that the proposed controls are sufficient.”

Waste management: The council said no waste management plan should rely on assumptions that have not been adequately tested against actual geological and operation conditions at the site.

Groundwater monitoring arrangements: The council said these had been insufficient defined so “the public is being consulted on a permit without being able to assess whether the monitoring system will be capable of detecting pollution promptly.”

More on HFP and 3D licence commitments

Europa told DrillOrDrop that local faults and fractures would be confirmed through the HFP to “verify that there are no material changes to the conceptual model before any proppant squeeze operations are authorised”.

The company added:

“A 3D seismic survey is required under the Hydraulic Fracture Plan and will be carried out before any proppant squeeze operation is conducted, ahead of that operation and assuming planning and other permissions are granted.”

DrillOrDrop has established that an HFP does not require a 3D seismic survey. The EA told us:

“There is no formal requirement in legislation or guidance for a 3D seismic survey to accompany a Hydraulic Fracture Plan.

“A 3D seismic survey is typically used to characterise geological structures at depth and can form part of the wider evidence base used to support the assessment of the subsurface. “However, while the Hydraulic Fracture Plan requires sufficient information to demonstrate the geological setting, faulting, and fracture behaviour at depth, it does not prescribe how this information must be obtained. As such, the use of a 3D seismic survey may support the Plan, but it is not a specific statutory or regulatory requirement.”

The Burniston 3D survey is a work commitment in Europa’s licence agreement for PEDL343 with the NSTA.

The NSTA told us operators could choose when to carry out licence commitments. It also said:

“It is important to note that commitments can be varied depending on the circumstances of the individual licence/field.”

In 2018, a legal challenge on licence commitments ruled that PEDLs were private contractual licence and that clauses or conditions could be changed if the parties agreed. In the Burniston case, the condition of a 3D survey could be removed if Europa and the NSTA agreed.

The U.S. Forest Service is rewriting its longstanding Travel Management Rule, which determines where off-road vehicles (ORVs) can travel across national forests and grasslands. This is the tool that land managers use to designate areas and trails for motorized use while also setting aside areas for human-powered recreation, wildlife habitat, and preservation of cultural sites.

The Trump administration wants to change—for the worse—how Utahns and other visitors experience national forests throughout the state, from the Wasatch Front to the redrock country outside of Escalante, Kanab, and Moab. The proposal places a heavy thumb on the scale to prioritize ORV use at the expense of all other uses and values, including the protection of wildlife, cultural sites, healthy streams, and the solitude of wild places. This will not improve access to public lands, but it will make the experience worse for all users, including hikers, bikers, hunters, anglers, and ORV riders.

The Forest Service is accepting public comments through Wednesday, September 23. Please tell the agency to protect national forests by keeping the Travel Management Rule intact!

Elk Ridge, Manti-La Sal National Forest. © Scott T. Smith

 Among other things, the Forest Service’s proposal would:

• Allow motorized vehicles everywhere on national forests and grasslands except where they are specifically prohibited, flipping longstanding policy.
  
  
• Force every forest or district to reconsider each year whether non-motorized trails, roads, and areas should be open to motorized vehicles.
  
  
• Create new pathways to expand ORV use with less public review.
  
  
• Eliminate the “minimization criteria,” which require the agency to locate motorized areas and trails to minimize damage to wildlife habitat, soils, watersheds, and vegetation and to minimize conflicts between different users.

In Utah, national forest lands help connect Bureau of Land Management landscapes proposed for wilderness designation in America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. These include the important watersheds of the Manti-La Sal, Dixie, and Fishlake National Forests.

There are already hundreds of thousands of miles of Forest Service roads nationwide, and they’re facing a $9 billion maintenance backlog. Added to that is a $300 million Forest Service trail maintenance backlog and a $29 million recreation backlog. An expanded route system will only exacerbate these problems.

Both the proposed Travel Management Rule change and the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule (see our alert from earlier this week) are part of the administration’s systematic dismantling of the rules and safeguards that keep national forests healthy and safe for the benefit of all. Undoing these rules will bring increased chaos and uncertainty for everyone who uses national forests.

Click here to submit your comments by September 23

The post Tell the Forest Service to Keep the Travel Management Rule appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

by Roger Coryell
September 7, 2026
The Mendocino Voice

[Excerpt:] Dutch Charlie Creek drops over moss-covered rock west of Laytonville, Calif., on Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021. The state has spent more than $1 million since 2012 pulling legacy roads out of the watershed to keep fine sediment off the gravel where coho spawn. (Philip McGarvey/Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek via Bay City News)

MENDOCINO CO., 9/7/26 — Logging on 926 acres in the hills west of Laytonville is stopped under two court orders at once.

…

The fight is over two timber harvest plans the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection approved on July 2 and 3. The agency’s notices list Redwood Timber Company LLC as landowner and Redwood Forest Operating Company LLC as the plan submitter. The larger plan, called Hot Tuna, covers 594 acres. The smaller one, Lincoln Logs, covers 332. Both call for selection logging rather than clearcutting. Court papers also call Hot Tuna by a second name, Lincoln Ridge. 

Friends of Dutch Charlie Creek, which litigates as Friends of Shaahnaa Lhook, sued Cal Fire on July 7, four days after it says the logging began. Its claim under the California Environmental Quality Act is that the plans never assess the sediment they will send into the creek, one of two reliable coho spawning streams left in the upper South Fork Eel, the group says. Coho on the Eel side of the county are listed as threatened under both the state and federal endangered species acts. 

. . .

Dutch Charlie Creek is the same water the state has spent more than a decade and a million dollars trying to repair.

. . .

The group’s press release says the timber harvesting plans include three miles of new road construction, including on steep slopes and near the creek. Its website says “millions” in state money went into road removal in the watershed. The grant record shows at least $1.03 million from the fisheries program. Other state funding sources were not checked. 

Roads shed fine sediment into streams, and fine sediment buries the gravel coho spawn in. The appellate court’s own briefing order in July asked the parties to address whether it is undisputed that logging would add sediment to what the court called an already impacted stream system. Cal Fire’s response to public comment says the Hot Tuna plan itself recognizes that the waters downstream are listed as impaired for sediment and temperature. 

. . .

To read the complete article, visit The Mendocino Voice:
Judge halts logging above Dutch Charlie Creek with most of it already done

The Burnham government has confirmed it will not ban lower-volume fracking.

Energy minister Martin McCluskey. Photo: Parliament TV

In one of the new administration’s first public statement on the subject, junior energy minister Martin McCluskey said there was a distinction between the promised ban on fracking for shale gas and low volume hydraulic fracturing techniques which would still be allowed.

The minister was closing a backbench parliamentary debate, which called for a total ban on fracking.

He said of lower-volume techniques, such as proppant squeeze:

“This is not the same as hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction. This is not associated with the same safety issues.”

Like fracking in shale, operations like proppant squeeze also inject fluid at pressures high enough to fracture rocks to increase the flow of gas.

But they are not prevented by the current moratorium on fracking in England because the volume of fluid they inject is below the legal threshold (more than 1,000m3 for a single fracture stage or 10,000m3 for an entire operation). Opponents have described the threshold as a legal loophole that is being exploited by oil and gas companies.

Operators are currently seeking to carry out lower-volume fracking at three sites in England: Burniston in North Yorkshire, West Newton-A in East Yorkshire and Wressle in North Lincolnshire.

Mr McCluskey told MPs:

“There is no clear evidence that [lower-volume fracking] induces seismicity that is felt on the surface.”

He added:

“Low volume hydraulic fracturing operations are routinely used on conventional oil and gas operations. They target different types of rocks, create fractures close to the wellbore and are typically short single stage operations, as opposed to the continuous fracture characteristic of shale gas fracking.”

The minister said the Energy Independence Bill would meet the government’s commitment not to issue new exploration and production licences, both on and offshore, including those that could be used to frack for shale gas. He said:

“That will deliver on our commitment in law to ban fracking.

He added:

“There is no loophole and no hidden route by which shale gas fracking can resume.

“The effective moratorium remains in place and the government will not issue new onshore licences in England, including those that could be used for fracking for shale gas. That is a reassurance, that communities across the country are entitled to hear.”

Opposition

The Lib Dem Claire Young, who opened the debate, urged the minister to commit to defining fracking by its purpose and its effects, not by what she described as “an arbitrary measure of fluid used”.

She said:

“Proppant squeeze is just hydraulic fracturing at lower fluid volume.

“The intent is identical, fracking. The technique is identical. A company injects fluid at high pressure to fracture rock and release the gas inside, but because the volume is lower, the law treats it as something else entirely and waves it through.”

She also called for a ban on all forms of fracking.

“This government has been in power for two years and yet I see no indication that a full ban is due.

“It seems that this government is not taking decisive action to stop all fracking activity.”

Alison Hume, the Labour MP for Scarborough, whose constituency includes Burniston, said:

“There is strong evidence to suggest that small-scale fracking carries the same risks as large scale operations, particularly around seismicity.”

She said:

“Unless the government acts boldly and closes the loophole communities across the country, such as those in West Newton and Burniston, will have fracking operations on their doorstep.

“These communities love where they live. Don’t they count? It doesn’t matter to them, whether it’s a mini frack or the full-scale version.

“The net result is the same: drill pads, drill heads, gas flare and noise, 24/7 lights during the exploration stage and continuous HGV lorry movements.”

She added:

“Unless we legislate to ban all forms of fracking in our upcoming Energy Independence Bill, then our fracking ban will be symbolic rather than material.

“We have a unique opportunity to show climate leadership. We have an opportunity as a government to stand up to the frackers, to make our legislation watertight to safeguard the natural environment.”

Other arguments

Reform’s Richard Tice said it was “dogmatic and stubborn” to ignore what he called the “most valuable economic treasure of shale gas”. He said companies had already invested more than £200m in the potential for UK onshore shale gas. This proved, he said, that they believed the reserves were “very considerable”.

But the Lib Dem’s energy spokesperson, Richard Foord, said:

“There is a real danger that investments in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake as the fuels, the facilities and the resources become stranded assets.”

Labour’s Phil Brickell said:

“Fracking became a symbol of a political establishment refusing to listen to communities and refusing to recognise where public opinion had already moved.”

Overview

Job Location: Solano County/Greater Bay Area
Projected Position Start Date: December 1, 2026
Job Classification: Salaried, Exempt
Salary Range: $70,000 – $90,000/yr
Reporting To: Senior Director of Planning and Research

APPLY HERE About this Opportunity:

Greenbelt Alliance is looking for a Climate Resilience Campaign Manager who will be the primary field representative for our Solano County work, supporting local efforts to shape a future for the county that includes vibrant, affordable cities, a thriving agricultural community, and protected ecosystems. This role includes managing the Solano Together coalition, identifying and supporting new and ongoing Solano projects focused on climate resilience and adaptation, and fostering partnerships across the county.

This is a special opportunity to be at the helm of a high-profile campaign and coalition that has continued to grow, evolve, and is eager to engage in shaping their community’s future. It is a great fit for someone energized by connecting and coalition building and passionate about political advocacy and community organizing, who enjoys springing to action when needed.

This role requires frequent interfacing with the press and public officials, as well as periodic attendance at evening and weekend in-person meetings or events. Greenbelt Alliance’s offices are in Oakland, CA. Greenbelt Alliance has a hybrid work schedule which is based on the location of primary work responsibilities.

What You’ll Be Working On

Responsibilities include, but are not limited to

• Manage day-to-day operations of the Solano Together Coalition, including workplan implementation, budget oversight, and planning and facilitating regular Coalition meetings, driving strategic action and follow-through.
• Partner with the Greenbelt Alliance marketing and communications team to produce compelling social media, web, email, and print content for Coalition audiences.
• Build and sustain relationships with local elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders.
• Serve as a public-facing spokesperson, engaging press and community groups on the Coalition’s positions and priorities as well as representing the organization and the Solano Together Coalition at public meetings and other events.
• Support volunteer trainings, canvassing, tabling, and outreach events.
• Advance the Solano Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Project through public engagement and event support.
• Cultivate new and existing partnerships to expand climate resilience work across the county.
• Supervise and mentor at least one part-time Resilience Fellow.

Desired Skills and Qualifications

Required:

• 5+ years of experience in community organizing, coalition building, campaign management, or government/legislative affairs
• Demonstrated success building and maintaining relationships with elected officials, agency staff, and community stakeholders
• Experience managing multi-partner projects with competing deadlines, including budget oversight
• Strong public speaking and writing skills, with comfort serving as a spokesperson to press and public audiences
• Ability to regularly and reliably attend in-person meetings and events across Solano County
• Availability for evening and weekend meetings and events, as needed
• Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with a diverse team
• Bachelor’s degree or equivalent professional experience

Preferred:

• • Experience with land use, housing, or environmental policy advocacy
  • Familiarity with Solano County’s political landscape, local government structures, and/or the California Forever development
  • Experience supervising staff, fellows, or volunteers
  • Spanish or other bilingual skills
  • Background in sea level rise, climate adaptation, or resilience planning

How to Apply

Applications for this position will be considered on a rolling basis; however, priority consideration will be given to applications submitted by October 12, 2026. Please allow several weeks for a response as we are reviewing applications. Be sure to attach both a cover letter and professional resume as PDF documents to your application. Apply Today.

About Greenbelt Alliance:

Greenbelt Alliance’s mission is to educate, advocate, and collaborate to ensure the Bay Area’s lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate. We work at the intersection of climate resilience, land-use planning, and equity to protect natural and working lands while advocating for climate-smart housing and community resilience.
We focus on data-driven and innovative policy solutions, foster much-needed regional collaboration to plan and invest in resilient communities, and leverage our expertise to realize a climate-resilient Bay Area.

Work Authorization:

At this time, Greenbelt Alliance is unable to offer assistance to noncitizens or nonresidents in obtaining employer-sponsored work visas. All employees must have authorization from the federal government to work lawfully in the United States of America. Authorization would include US citizenship, US permanent residency (“green card”), or any other type of unexpired work authorization visa issued by the federal government.

Equal Employment Statement:

Greenbelt Alliance is an equal opportunity employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other category. We strongly encourage people of color, LGBTQIA+ persons, people of different levels of physical ability, people with diverse national and class origins, and all qualified persons to apply for this position.

Greenbelt Alliance encourages candidates of all abilities to apply to this position! In the case you may require any kind of special accommodation in order to complete the application or hiring process, please contact Sadie Wilson via email.

Photo: Rain garden installation in Suisun City.

The post Climate Resilience Campaign Manager appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

According to a new blog post by The Wilderness Society, the Trump administration’s behind-the-scenes push to trade away a piece of Yosemite National Park to a private developer isn’t an isolated move—it’s one of at least seven similar efforts to privatize or dispose of public land.

Examples include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service handing SpaceX a chunk of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Interior’s removal of protections for 2.1 million acres of Alaska public land to clear the way for the Ambler Road mining project, and a federal housing task force identifying Bureau of Land Management land within 10 miles of any town of more than 5,000 people for potential disposal.

The push to privatize part of Yosemite National Park was first reported in late August by NOTUS (now the Washington Sun), which said that Interior is negotiating a swap that would give developer Kingsbarn Realty Capital a private access road to a planned resort in exchange for equivalent-value land elsewhere in California.

The Yosemite deal, The Wilderness Society wrote, sets “yet another chilling precedent of public land decisions made by the administration to directly benefit special interests.“

EPA removes limits on pollution from power plants

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced it will no longer regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas plants. The move finalizes the reversal of a Biden-era rule that estimates it would have saved thousands of lives, and begins the process of completely rescinding all remaining GHG emissions standards for power plants. The EPA said that greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have “no material impact on global climate change,” despite the fact that US electricity generation is responsible for a quarter of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Quick hits EPA erases limits on climate pollution from power plants

New York Times | CNN | The Guardian | Los Angeles Times | Washington Post

Secretary AI: Inside Burgum’s huddles with data center heavyweights

Politico Pro

Environmental groups protest BLM oil and gas auctions in Colorado

Sentinel Colorado

Opinion: What Teddy Roosevelt knew and Trump doesn’t get: Public lands need science

The Equation

The Trump admin says repealing the Roadless Rule will reduce wildfires. A new study casts doubt on that

Salt Lake Tribune

Interior defends Utah monument reductions despite public outcry

KSJD

Yosemite development scheme recalls admin’s other public lands sell-off efforts

The Wilderness Society

What will happen to the Grand Canyon as water levels drop?

High Country News

Quote of the day

America’s public lands are among our nation’s greatest treasures. Protecting them requires more than celebrating them. It requires defending the science, scientific workforce, and public institutions that make stewardship possible.”

—Julian Reyes, Chief of Staff at the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Equation

Picture This @wyomingoutdoorcouncil

The Roadless Rule is in danger. Click the link in our bio and tell the Forest Service you value America’s last wild landscapes before the public comment period closes on Sept. 21.

 

(Featured image: Yosemite Falls at Yosemite National Park in California. webmink, Flickr)

The post Yosemite land swap is part of a bigger pattern of public lands giveaways appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The Lock the Gate Alliance says new laws introduced to Queensland Parliament today could undermine Queenslanders’ rights to scrutinise and object to mining projects that threaten their water, farmland and climate.