You are here
G2. Local Greens
Be Prepared Gilroy: A Community Disaster Preparedness Toolkit
In the past decade, the City of Gilroy has experienced record high temperatures and more intense flooding and wildfires. As climate change continues to impact Gilroy, and is projected to increase in frequency and intensity, it is more important than ever for residents, families, and neighborhoods to leverage local resources, educate themselves, build local safety networks, and advocate for local elected officials to prioritize policies and investments that work to increase community resilience.
To address these concerns and equip the community with actionable resources, the Be Prepared Gilroy toolkit aims to provide Gilroy residents with key local disaster preparedness resources in one place and propose a roadmap to community disaster resilience. Click below to download your copy for free:
Download the toolkit in english Download Now Descarga el kit de herramientas en español Download Now
Presented by Greenbelt Alliance and Community Agency for Resources, Agency, and Services (CARAS), a Gilroy-based non-profit committed to community empowerment and the betterment of Latino families through leadership development, advocacy, and cultural awareness, this toolkit delivers actionable information and resources for communities tackling growing climate impacts. It was developed by Mariah Padilla, resilience fellow, as part of her academic research and advocacy work with Greenbelt Alliance.
This toolkit is a direct response to Gilroy community member’s desire for more disaster preparedness resources and opportunities to learn about climate impacts in a way that reflects their everyday lives and culture. It stems from extensive research, community and stakeholder engagement, multiple conversations, surveys, events. Learn more about the collaboration and engagement work we lead in Gilroy.
As an organization committed to climate justice, we recognize that this is a starting point, but more long-term, sustainable, and transformative change will require collaboration between local government, community members, and other key stakeholders to implement plans and policies to make a more resilient Gilroy possible for all.
Resilience refers to the ability of communities to prepare for, adapt to, and recover from the impacts of climate change before disaster occurs.
Resilience HotspotsThis toolkit is part of Greenbelt Alliance’s Bay Area Resilient Hotspots Initiative. The Resilience Hotspots Initiative is a data-driven, community-informed program that aims to collaboratively work with trusted community partners to help foster community resilience and climate change awareness in places throughout the Bay Area where the climate threat to people and nature is the highest.
Gilroy was identified as a hotspot due to its significant climate risks including fire, flooding, and extreme heat. Severe flooding and wildfires have historically and recently caused serious property damage and economic challenges for local residents—a community that is also grappling with health issues caused by rising temperatures. Resilient Hotspots efforts in Gilroy are focused on increasing community resilience to wildfire, extreme heat, and flooding by engaging with residents to understand community priorities and promoting climate change and disaster preparedness resources.
WHAT'S IN THE TOOLKITThe Be Prepared Gilroy toolkit is a direct response to Gilroy’s desire for more disaster preparedness resources and opportunities to learn about climate impacts in a way that reflects their everyday lives and culture. Here are the main features you can explore:
INTRODUCTION TO CLIMATE HAZARDSLearn about the most common climate hazards—such as wildfires, floods, and extreme heat—through brief and accessible explainers.
- Use our guidance to create your own list of supplies and grab-and-go kits to make your family and pets safer in an emergency.
- Check the extensive list or organizations, agencies, apps, and groups that can offer alerts, information, and shelter if disaster hits.
- Explore the list of the most common names and expressions used by local agencies.
The post Be Prepared Gilroy: A Community Disaster Preparedness Toolkit appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.
The Hub 11/22/2024: Clean Air Council’s Weekly Round-up of Transportation News
“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
Have a Happy Thanksgiving. The Hub will return on December 6th!
Image Source: The InquirerThe Inquirer: Gov. Shapiro secures $153 million for SEPTA, averting fare hike planned for 2025 – Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that PennDOT will immediately redirect $153 million in Federal Highway funds to support SEPTA. This stopgap funding will prevent the 21.5% fare increase expected for Jan 1. and service cuts. A permanent funding solution is still needed.
Image Source: The InquirerThe Inquirer: A guide to public transit and car-free transportation to Philly sports games – On game days, sports fans should skip the gridlock and avoid traffic by taking public transportation. SEPTA has several routes that will get you to the Sports Complex, including the Broad Street subway. Using transit saves you money for parking and gives you more time to enjoy the game.
Image Source: The InquirerThe Inquirer: SEPTA strike averted in last-minute deal with transit workers union – SEPTA and Transport Workers Local 234 union signed a one-year agreement and prevented a major strike. From this agreement, union members will get a 5% wage increase and a 5% monthly increase in pension benefits for those retiring next year. The transit agency also agreed to make safety improvements such as installing bulletproof enclosures in buses to protect operators and upgrades to radios to improve communication.
Other StoriesStreetsblog NYC: Car-Free Streets Are Good For Business, Yet Another Report Shows
BaltimoreBrew: Baltimore pledges to spend $44 million on ADA-compliant ramps and sidewalks
Streetsblog USA: This Program Wants To Coach Cities Through Setting Safer Speed Limits
BillyPenn: Intercity bus riders at Spring Garden terminal will get a waiting room trailer
The Inquirer: A South Philly street was named for a beloved school crossing guard. Welcome to Gerri Graves Way.
The Inquirer: Families rally in Philly to honor victims of traffic deaths and demand legislative change
Biden designated six new national monuments—can he do more?
President Joe Biden has created more national monuments in a single term than any president since Jimmy Carter left office in 1981—and there is still time to do more before he leaves office.
One of President Biden’s first moves in office was to restore Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah after President Trump attempted to reduce their size. Since then, he has created six new monuments and expanded two more, totaling 1.6 million acres. “He really started thinking about monuments right from the get-go,” said Justin Pidot, a professor at the University of Arizona College of Law who worked in the Biden and Obama administrations. “So, you see much more activity than you usually see during the first term.”
California Tribes are advocating for three more new national monuments before Biden leaves office, noting that a second Trump administration poses a risk for additional attempts to reduce national monuments, and possibly a broader challenge to the Antiquities Act itself, the more than 100-year-old law that gives presidents the authority to designate national monuments via proclamation. Local advocates are also pushing for the protection of the Owyhee Canyonlands in southeast Oregon and the Dolores Canyons in southwest Colorado.
Conservation and public lands victories in 2024Despite the looming threat of a second Trump administration, there are several key conservation and public lands victories achieved in 2024 that are worthy of celebrating, as noted in a recent article by The Wilderness Society. Examples include the Bureau of Land Management’s public lands and oil and gas rules, and its release of a plan to guide renewable energy development on public lands; enhanced protections for the Western Arctic; new and expanded national monuments and national wildlife refuges; mineral withdrawals to protect sensitive ecosystems and landscapes from drilling and mining; and historic funding for access to outdoor experiences. Read the article for some good news to end the week.
Quick hits Colorado’s outdoor recreation economy worth more than $17 billion in 2023 Biden has designated six national monuments—can he do more? Roundup of bleak predictions for Trump’s incoming energy and environment team, and what it means for public landsThe Guardian [wildfire] | E&E News [DOI] | ABC News | CBS News [drilling] | Associated Press | CNBC | Denver Post [DOE nominee] | E&E News [Commerce nominee]
A fatal forecast: Extreme heat is killing more Las Vegas residents than ever Salmon are “coming home” to spawn in Klamath River after removal of dams Study: Wildlife crossings need to incorporate climate change Decision on protections for Monarch butterflies coming soon The 10 best hikes in Utah’s national parks Quote of the dayOne of the coolest things about the fact that monarchs are kind of everywhere is that everyone can get involved with conservation. One of our goals at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to maintain that magic for the public.”
—Cat Darst, wildlife biologist and assistant field supervisor with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, KDLG
Picture ThisIf you’re ever required to write a 1,000 word essay, we suggest submitting a picture instead.
People say they’re worth a 1,000 words. Who are we to argue? Here’s a great one of @grandcanyonnps. Good luck, you got this!
Image: Pastel pink light tints the Grand Canyon landscape and clouds, just after sunset. The view is from Yavapai Point on the South Rim. NPS/M.Quinn
#sceniclandscape #grandcanyon #sunset #travel #beautifuldestinations #nature #apictureisworthathousandwords
Featured image: Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada, one of the six new national monuments designated by President Biden. Photo credit: Center for Western Priorities.
The post Biden designated six new national monuments—can he do more? appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Philadelphia City Council Passes Resolution to Ensure SEPTA’s Stability and Prevent Fare Hikes and Service Cuts
PHILADELPHIA, PA (November 21, 2024) Philadelphia City Council passed a resolution this morning calling on Governor Josh Shapiro and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) to flex federal funding to SEPTA to prevent fare hikes and service cuts. This resolution comes as SEPTA faces a significant deficit that threatens to impact the affordability and reliability of public transit services in the region.
SEPTA has faced significant financial challenges in recent years, exacerbated by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced ridership, and rising operational costs. If nothing is done about the funding crisis by the end of the year, then SEPTA will have to increase fares by 29% and reduce service by 20%. This could cause $40 to $50 million in annual revenue losses.
“We have been ringing the alarm bells about this transit crisis for over a year, and no one has taken action,” said Connor Descheemaker, Transit Forward Philadelphia Coalition Manager. “Four times as many people ride SEPTA per day as travel on I-95, and we need to treat transit like the critical infrastructure it is for our region.”
Governor Shapiro has unilateral power to direct PennDOT to allocate funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and “flex” it to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to fund transit. This is a stopgap measure, but the only available option at this critical moment. Long-term, the Pennsylvania Legislature needs to come up with a permanent solution for public transportation funding to ensure continued and equitable access to vital public transit services for all residents in the Delaware Valley.
“Pennsylvania is at a crossroads. Governor Shapiro can’t count on the legislature to stave off the SEPTA fare hikes and service cuts awaiting us in the New Year,” said Alex Bomstein, Clean Air Council Executive Director. “City Council is right: Shapiro must act now by flexing existing funding to save transit.”
City Council and Transit for all Pennsylvania call on Governor Shapiro and the DVRPC to work together with SEPTA to identify alternative funding solutions and ensure that transit services remain intact. Transit riders can send an email to Governor Shapiro asking to flex funding for SEPTA here. To learn more about the resolution, click here.
Biden admin urges “consensus path” for Colorado River management
The series of agreements that govern the management of the Colorado River are set to expire at the end of 2026. The stakes for negotiating the next series of agreements are incredibly high, with 40 million Americans and over 5 million acres of farmland in southwestern and western states relying on the river in the midst of a historic and ongoing mega drought.
Since March, the seven states and numerous Tribal nations that share this precious resource have struggled to reach an agreement on the future management of the river—how it should be shared, and which states will bear the brunt of the most significant cuts to water use. To circumvent the gridlock, the Interior department and the Bureau of Reclamation have unveiled five possible paths forward that the Biden administration will analyze for a draft environmental impact statement to be released in early 2025.
“There certainly are extremely difficult choices and trade-offs to be made, but we believe that there are ample opportunities to create a fair path to solutions that work for the entire basin,” Reclamation Commissioner Camille Calimlim Touton said in a news conference Wednesday. White House national climate adviser Ali Zaidi concurred about the possibility of “a consensus path,” saying, “We can either remain stuck at an impasse, or we can secure a future for future generations that promises the stability and sustainability of one of our greatest natural resources.”
Quick hits Report: Outdoor recreation contributes $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy, 5 million jobs Tribal representatives call on Biden to designate three new national monuments in California Jonathan Thompson: Governance by spite and the future of Bears Ears National Monument Scientists: Don’t count on trees and other natural carbon sinks to stop climate change Nevada may see less solar, more gas under Trump administration How oil and gas companies disguise their methane emissions Biden admin urges “consensus path” for future Colorado River managementE&E News | KUNC | Las Vegas Review Journal | Associated Press | Colorado Sun | Denver Post | The Hill | Nevada Current
Global oil market faces 1 million barrel glut next year Quote of the dayFor us, it’s about more than protecting the environment. Our culture, spirituality, and identity are connected to the ecosystems our people have inhabited for thousands of years. If a species goes extinct, if a mountain is destroyed by mining, if a river runs dry due to over-extraction–that is the same thing to us as losing a relative or having someone close to us harmed. We lose a part of ourselves and our history.”
—Lena Ortega, Kw’tsán Cultural Committee Member and Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe member, KTLA
Picture ThisThe tallest dunes in North America are the centerpiece of a diverse landscape of grasslands, wetlands, forests, alpine lakes and tundra at @greatsanddunesnps in Colorado.
We are able to protect places like Great Sand Dunes because of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF is a critical tool for preserving our nation’s cultural identity and ensuring all Americans have access to public lands and waters.
Photo by Patrick Myers / NPS
#greatsanddunes #usinterior #colorado #publiclands
Featured image: Lake Mead. Photo by Andrew Pernick, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Flickr.
The post Biden admin urges “consensus path” for Colorado River management appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Big changes Trump could make to climate and environment policies
Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January could reverse many of the United States’ most significant efforts to address climate change, and overturn decades worth of environmental policies and regulations. The president-elect and his nominees for key government posts have promised to increase fossil fuel production, roll back rules aimed at curbing pollution, dismantle support for renewable energy, and diminish the U.S.’ role in international climate negotiations.
The Washington Post put together a list of twelve of the biggest anti-environment, anti-climate changes Trump and his team could make:
- Withdraw from the Paris climate agreement
- Open up more areas for oil and gas drilling
- Weaken power plant rules
- Abolish a fee on methane
- Claw back clean energy subsidies
- Shrink national monuments
- End the pause on approving facilities and exporting liquified natural gas
- Scrap Biden’s environmental justice initiative
- Narrow protections for endangered plants and animals
- End climate disclosure rules for corporations
- Lift restrictions on auto emissions
- Stall federal clean energy purchasing
This industry-sponsored wishlist underscores the imperative that the Biden administration complete as many environmental regulations and actions with the time it has left, which the Washington Post is also tracking. There is still time left for President Joe Biden to establish more national monuments, and for his Interior department to finalize protections for threatened and endangered species and bring more renewable energy projects over the finish line.
Quick hits Colorado looks to cut insurance costs for wildfire-protected homes 12 changes Trump could make to climate and environmental policies Has the EPA run out of time to address air pollution violations in the Permian Basin? Wyoming is about to find out if sage-grouse will visit a human-created breeding lek American Petroleum Institute just gave Trump a deregulatory wishlist Fifth wolf killed north of Yellowstone National Park despite quota Opinion: The Rock Springs management plan isn’t perfect, but it should still go into effect Trump wants a big expansion in fossil fuel production—can he do that? Quote of the dayDismantling environmental protections through federal lawsuits against states is likely if past is prologue.”
—James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary, Capital & Main
Picture ThisRed Shawl Day is a day to remember and honor the missing and murdered Indigenous peoples crisis and their families. We wear red to bring attention to the horrible acts of violence committed against Indigenous communities, particularly women and children.
Photo by @usindianaffairs
Featured image: Colorado coal mine. Photo by BLM Colorado, Flickr.
The post Big changes Trump could make to climate and environment policies appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Loss: Measure S Doesn’t Reach Enough Support for Investment Parks in Pleasant Hill
Updated: It’s unfortunate that Measure S didn’t reach enough support in Pleasant Hill. The Measure was a few votes shy of reaching the required 2/3s of the vote (66.67).
Measure S would boost investment in the City’s park and recreation system by allowing the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District to authorize the sale of $77 million in bonds to fund parks maintenance and repairs in addition to the current operating budget. This investment would have a beneficial impact to the quality of like of local residents
Learn more at pleasanthillrec.com/682/Measure-S–November-5-2024.
Why It MattersKnown as a great place to raise families, Pleasant Hill missed the opportunity to invest in its parks and recreation system for the increased health and enjoyment of current and future families. Many facilities are decades old and need to be repaired, for example, Pleasant Hill community pool is 70 years old.
Measure S would help raise critically needed funds to maintain the Parks and Rec infrastructure such as improving hiking trails, water systems, adding bathrooms, and more.
Photo credit: Pleasant Hill Park Facebook Reproduction
Originally published on September 23, 2024
The post Loss: Measure S Doesn’t Reach Enough Support for Investment Parks in Pleasant Hill appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.
Loss: Dublin Votes to Extend Urban Limit Line with Measure II
Update: We are disappointed to report that a majority of voters (53%) endorsed Measure II in Dublin, therefore authorizing the expansion of the Urban Limit Line established by the Open Space Initiative in 2014.
Measure II will extend Dublin Boulevard to Livermore and enable commercial development on Dublin’s open spaces. Greenbelt Alliance urged Dublin voters to vote NO on Measure II to protect critical open spaces separating Dublin and Livermore, as they serve as important resilience buffers from wildfires and climate threats, habitat to flora and fauna, and also as recreational destinations for local residents. Learn more about the harmful impacts of this decision on the campaign website.
Why It MattersSouthern Doolan Canyon and Crosby property is a beautiful area between Dublin and Livermore that has been protected by the 2014 Dublin Open Space Initiative. Doolan Canyon provides habitat corridors for wildlife including endangered species such as the Alameda whipsnake and red-legged frog. This area also contains riparian and wetland habitats that support a variety of special status species, including rare alkali soil plant species.
The development of commercial property in this area would begin to destroy the open space that has been preserved for years. Greenbelt Alliance advocated that the City of Dublin should prioritize building on existing infrastructure and continue to preserve its precious open spaces.
Originally published on September 23, 2024.
The post Loss: Dublin Votes to Extend Urban Limit Line with Measure II appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.
Interior official touts Indigenous climate cooperation at COP29
Interior acting deputy secretary Laura Daniel-Davis moderated a panel at the United Nations’ COP29 conference in Azerbaijan about the department’s efforts during the Biden administration to incorporate Indigenous knowledge and practices into climate resilience efforts. Panel participants included leaders from the International Indian Treaty Council, the Quinault Indian Nation in Washington state, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“Since the start of the Biden-Harris administration, we have leveraged the influence and decision making of the department to really chart a new course for climate action, and one that is deeply rooted in Indigenous knowledge that Tribes have garnered over millennia,” Daniel-Davis said. The accumulated knowledge of Native Americans is being incorporated into Interior department efforts to help Tribes respond to climate change, including updates to department manuals and a voluntary relocation program for Tribal members whose homes are threatened by climate change.
In a news release about the COP29 panel, the Interior department said that the agency is planning Tribal consultations next month for the release of a draft handbook on best practices to incorporate Indigenous knowledge and to engage with Indigenous communities on applying such knowledge. “Indigenous knowledge simply must play a guiding role for us in the decision making of government,” Daniel-Davis said.
Quick hits Scientists call for review of Grand Canyon uranium mine Utah, feds finalize 200,000 acre land swap deal near San Rafael Swell Interior official touts Indigenous climate cooperation at COP29 Conservationists paint bleak picture of Nevada’s environment under Trump Chart: Most Americans support expanding solar and wind energy development $100,000 reward offered after protected Mexican gray wolf found dead in Arizona Fight over land exchange for prime Wyoming hunting habitat headed to federal court Opinion: President Biden must act to save New Mexico’s Caja del Rio Quote of the dayIf [North Dakota governor and Interior secretary nominee] Doug Burgum tries to turn America’s public lands into an even bigger cash cow for the oil and gas industry, or tries to shrink America’s parks and national monuments, he’ll quickly discover he’s on the wrong side of history.”
—Jennifer Rokala, Executive Director of the Center for Western Priorities, Writers on the Range
Picture ThisWhen winter comes around, it brings the opportunity to experience public lands in a whole new way. ❄️
But colder weather can present its own set of risks and can make your trip challenging if you are unprepared. Whether you are hiking, driving, camping or skiing, don’t let winter weather take you by surprise.
What can you do?
❄️ Restricted access and park or monument closures are common during the winter months – check the website before you head out.
❄️ Always check the weather forecast on the day of your trip – weather conditions can change very quickly.
❄️ Be realistic about the increased difficulty of traveling and recreating in the winter. Hiking on icy or snow-covered trails is much more difficult than hiking on a trail in the summer.
Photo at @craterlakenps by Greg Funderburk / NPS
#craterlake #winter #usinterior
Featured image: Interior Secretary and first ever Native American cabinet secretary Deb Haaland with a Tribal elder from the Acoma Pueblo. Photo credit: @secdebhaaland
The post Interior official touts Indigenous climate cooperation at COP29 appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Utah’s land grab lawsuit has cost taxpayers over $3 million, so far
On August 20, 2024, the state of Utah filed a lawsuit against the federal government with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking control of 18.5 million acres of national public land. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear the case.
Utah lawmakers have a habit of throwing millions of taxpayer dollars at frivolous efforts to seize and sell off national public lands. The state of Utah’s latest land grab lawsuit demanding control of 18.5 million acres of public land in the state is another misguided attempt to do so and could end up costing taxpayers well over $20 million dollars.
So far, Utah lawmakers have spent more than $500,000 on a single Supreme Court brief, while approving more than $2.6 million for the public relations campaign on the lawsuit.
Lawsuit spendingIt’s hard to track exactly how much money has been appropriated for the upcoming legal battle. House Bill 3002, passed in the Utah legislature’s 2024 June special session, appropriated $6.7 million to the Federal Overreach Restricted Account in FY2024 (July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024). $3 million of that came from the Department of Government Operations’ Public Lands Litigation Program and $3.7 million from the Attorney General’s Contract Attorneys account. HB3002 also appropriated $1.675 million to the Attorney General’s Contract Attorneys account in FY2025 (July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025) from the Federal Overreach Restricted Account.
As of the end of FY2024, the Federal Overreach Restricted Account had a balance of $6.7 million. $4.5 million disappeared from that account in 2022. We don’t know if that money was spent on litigation or was transferred to another account.
The state of Utah hired Virginia-based law firm Clement and Murphy to prepare the complaint filed by the state with the Supreme Court. The state has paid the law firm $518,000 since 2023. According to documents CWP received in response to a GRAMA request, Clement and Murphy’s contract with the state to write the SCOTUS filing dates to February 2023. (Clement and Murphy is also representing the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition in the Uinta Basin Rail case, but a spokesperson for the AG’s office confirmed to the Salt Lake Tribune that this $518,000 is all for the land grab complaint.) The legal brief is 74 pages long (not including appendices). That’s $7,000 per page.
According to documents CWP received from the Utah Attorney General’s office in response to a GRAMA request, Clement and Murphy’s hourly rates range from $2350/hour for Lead Attorney Paul Clement to $1100/hour for Junior Attorney Joesph DeMott.
Additionally, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has said publicly that the state legislature has appropriated about $20 million in total for the legal challenge.
“What we’ve spent currently or plan to spend is, I don’t have an exact number, but it’s a fraction,” Reyes said, telling reporters the state will save money by filing the lawsuit with the Supreme Court because it won’t have to litigate in federal district courts.
We don’t know when the additional $13.3 million Reyes mentioned ($6.7 million + $13.3 million = $20 million) was appropriated or what account it is in. But keep in mind that if the Supreme Court passes on hearing the lawsuit, the state is likely to refile their case in the lower federal courts, no doubt costing Utah taxpayers millions of dollars on litigation in an attempt to get the case in front of the Supreme Court.
Public relations spendingHouse Bill 3002 appropriated $2.142 million to the Department of Natural Resources’ Executive Director as a one-time appropriation from the Federal Overreach Restricted Account in FY2025 (July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025). HB3002 also appropriated $1.5 million to the Department of Natural Resources’ Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) in FY2025. That money also came from the Federal Overreach Restricted Account. That totals $3.64 million in funding transferred from the Federal Overreach Restricted Account to the Department of Natural Resources, which is running the PR campaign around the lawsuit.
According to documents CWP received from the Utah Department of Natural Resources in response to a GRAMA request, we know that in February 2024, PLPCO entered into a $500,000 contract with communications firm Penna Powers for five years. Records show that the state amended its contract with Penna Powers in July 2024 from $500,000 to $2,642,000 million.
According to documents CWP received from the Utah Department of Natural Resources in response to a GRAMA request, we know that PLPCO planned to spend at least $1,350,000 on a public relations campaign connected to the lawsuit between July and November 2024.
PLPCO hired Utah-based public relations firm Penna Powers to handle the campaign. According to a July 2024 Penna Powers and PLPCO media plan, PLPCO planned to spend $150,000 in paid media in Utah, $750,000 on the Utah launch, and $450,000 in a Washington, D.C. launch targeting policy and legal advisors.
The following details were available in the media plan:
Phase 1 – Utah ($150,000)*
- $20,000 to “KSL,” including a sitewide display and native article, between July and August 2024.
- $20,000 to “Deseret News,” including sitewide display/newsletters and native article, between July and August 2024.
- $25,000 to “SL Tribune,” including sitewide display/newsletters and native article, between July and August 2024.
- $60,000 to “paid social,” including Facebook and Instagram, between July and early September.
- $25,000 to “paid search” between July and early September 2024.
*Penna Powers media plan left out “paid search” cost from phase one total spend, so total is wrong for Phase 1 in PP media plan. They report $125,000, but it’s actually $150,000.
Phase 2 – Utah ($750,000)
- $150,000 to “Outdoor interstate billboards (8-10)” between August and November 2024.
- $250,000 to “local broadcast TV stations” between August and October 2024.
- $80,000 to “connected TV / YouTube” between August and October 2024.
- $80,000 to “local radio stations” between August and October 2024.
- $50,000 to “podcasts + audio streaming” between August and October 2024.
- $75,000 to “Meta (FB/IG), Reddit, Twitter” between August and October 2024.
- $65,000 to “local publishers + sponsored articles” between August and October 2024.
Phase 3 – Washington, DC ($450,000)
- $65,125 to “The Dispatch,” including “Podcasts: Advisory Opinions, The Remnant, The Dispatch” and “newsletter sponsorships, between September and October 2024.
- $12,750 to “Honestly with Bari Weiss” in September 2024.
- $62,500 to “Wall Street Journal,” including “Policy Impact Bundle: Politics & Policy Newsletter buyout, Potomac Watch podcast, Politics Front Buyout, Contextual targeting; RON AV” between September and October 2024.
- $35,295 to a Washington Post Capitol Hill Wrap in September 2024.
- $70,590 to “seamless ad, ROS display” with Washington Post between September and October 2024.
- $7,060 to the back cover of the November issue of National Review.
- $47,500 to a native article and DC DMA homepage takeover with National Review during unspecified dates.
- $30,000 to “geo-fencing government buildings,” including “display” and “video” between September and October 2024.
- $60,000 to “programmatic audience targeting,” including “display, video” between September and October 2024.
- $50,000 to “social media” including “Meta (FG/IG), X” [sic] between September and October 2024.
- $9,180 to “paid search,” including “using keywords from press release” between September and October 2024.
Past spending on similar and related land seizure efforts
Over the past decade, taxpayers in Utah have spent at least $3.95 million on public land seizure efforts, not including the latest land grab lawsuit and public relations campaign.
- Since 2014, Utah counties have paid over $650,000 to the American Lands Council, a nonprofit started by Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, that specializes in federal land seizure efforts.
- In 2015, Utah hired a team of lawyers to study the feasibility of filing a lawsuit to overturn federal ownership of public lands. The report alone cost taxpayers $500,000.
- The state hired New Orleans-based law firm Davillier Law Group to complete the analysis.
- Davillier estimated that the total cost to bring a case against the federal government would be $13,819,000.
- Based on Davillier’s findings, the Utah State Commission on Stewardship of Public Lands voted in 2015 to prepare a legal complaint against the federal government.
- The Commission for the Stewardship of Public Lands hired Davillier Law Group in 2015 to build the legal case for land seizure and hired Logan-based think tank Strata Policy to develop advocacy materials. The state also retained the services of Salt Lake City lobbying firm Foxley & Pignanelli, pollster Y2 Analytics and Nuffer Smith Public Relations of San Francisco.
- Rep. Keven Stratton, then-chairman of the Commission for the Stewardship of Public Lands, acknowledged the state paid $900,000 to Davillier and the other contractors, including $347,681 on “relations services.”
- Davillier and the consultants appear to have spent that money on costs outside the scope of their contracts. One lawyer spent $3,100 at Salt Lake City’s finest hotels and regularly flew first class, courtesy of Utah taxpayers.
- In 2016 and 2017, the Utah Legislature paid the Foundation for Integrated Resource Management (FIRM) $400,000 to file public lands lawsuits against the federal government on behalf of counties, however the group never did.
- The Utah legislature went on to appropriate $300,000 in 2019 to a new research institute developed by FIRM, known as the Rural Policy and Public Lands Institute.
- In 2016 and 2017, taxpayers in San Juan County paid nearly $500,000 to law firm Davillier to lobby the Trump administration for Bears Ears monument reductions.
- As of 2020, state lawmakers had appropriated $700,000 to tech firm Geomancer to develop software to put a price tag on Utah’s public lands to argue that they should be privatized.
- Rep. Ken Ivory quit his job as a state legislator to take a job with Geomancer after voting to appropriate money to the company, raising ethical concerns.
State land seizure efforts are NOT supported by the majority of Utahns or Westerners. In Colorado College’s 2016 State of the Rockies Project poll, 58 percent of voters across the West say they opposed efforts to turn management of public lands over to the states. In Utah, 47 percent of voters opposed these efforts, while 41 percent supported them. Finally, Westerners are not fed up with federal land management agencies, and instead believe that they are doing a good job. As seen in data from Colorado College’s 2014 poll, Western voters approve of the work that these agencies are doing.
Google drive with GRAMA documents
Featured image: Don Ramey Logan; Utah Sign during RAAM 2015 by D Ramey Logan.jpg from Wikimedia Commons
The post Utah’s land grab lawsuit has cost taxpayers over $3 million, so far appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Colorado likely to be at odds on oil and gas under Trump presidency
The state of Colorado has adopted the same greenhouse gas reduction targets to combat climate change as those the United States government agreed to as part of the internationally-backed Paris climate agreement signed in 2015. This includes an ambitious goal of cutting 50 percent of carbon dioxide emissions across Colorado’s economy by 2050 from a baseline set in 2005. However, President-elect Donald Trump’s vows to once again withdraw the United States from the Paris climate pact and to “drill baby, drill” on federal lands could make Colorado’s progress toward reaching those targets more difficult.
There are over 2 million acres of issued but unused federal oil and gas leases in Colorado and the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of updating resource management plans (RMPs) that will determine future leasing across millions more acres in Colorado. Given that those plans reflect the priorities of the Biden administration, it’s possible the Trump administration would want to revise them, a long process that is certain to face legal challenges.
In addition, Project 2025, the policy checklist put together by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, includes a goal to “abandon withdrawals of lands from leasing in the Thompson Divide of the White River National Forest, Colorado.” In April, the Biden administration withdrew about 221,000 acres from drilling and mining in the Thompson Divide for 20 years after a decades-long battle by environmentalists and landowners to block oil and gas operations in the area.
Quick hits Trump picks Colorado fossil fuel executive to lead the Energy departmentNew York Times | Colorado Sun | Associated Press | Axios | North Dakota Monitor
Colorado likely to be at odds on oil and gas under Trump presidency Environmental groups fear Doug Burgum will sacrifice public lands for oil industry profits U.S. Forest Service proposes drastically increasing logging in the Pacific Northwest Despite Biden’s plans to protect sage-grouse, the Trump administration has the bird in its crosshairsNorth State Journal | Colorado Public Radio
Interior says projects funded by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law supported 28,000 jobs, $3 billion economic impact last year Wildfire prevention, trail work at risk under U.S. Forest Service’s seasonal employee hiring freeze Study: Key Colorado River basins could be at a tipping point Quote of the dayThe fight to protect our planet is literally a fight for humanity.”
—President Joe Biden during a trip to the Amazon rainforest, Associated Press
Picture ThisThis black-billed magpie took advantage of @windcavenps‘ new bison ride-share program.
It is one of America’s oldest national parks, and you can find wildlife roaming, and riding through, its rolling prairie grasslands and forested hillsides.
Photo by Colleen Cahill
Featured image: Oil and gas infrastructure. Photo credit: BLM Colorado, Flickr
The post Colorado likely to be at odds on oil and gas under Trump presidency appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Burgum to lead Interior
President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum to be his Secretary of the Interior. Burgum is a former software executive who organized a dinner at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year where Trump suggested oil and gas executives raise $1 billion for his campaign.
“We’re going to do things with energy and with land interior that is going to be incredible,” Trump said Thursday night.
At Interior, Burgum will oversee 20 percent of America’s lands, despite coming from a state with very little national public land. The federal government owns less than 4 percent of North Dakota’s land, and the majority of that is managed by the Department of Agriculture, not Interior.
Trump made his announcement at the America First Policy Institute Gala, hosted by the organization that is effectively running Trump’s transition. The New York Times reported that former Interior secretary and fossil fuel lobbyist David Bernhardt is preparing a slate of day-one executive orders to boost the oil industry. Bernhardt praised Trump’s choice of Burgum Thursday night.
Jennifer Rokala, executive director at the Center for Western Priorities, was skeptical of the nomination.
“Running the Interior department requires someone who can find balance between recreation, conservation, hunting, ranching, mining, and—yes—oil drilling,” Rokala said. “If Doug Burgum tries to turn America’s public lands into an even bigger cash cow for the oil and gas industry, or tries to shrink America’s parks and national monuments, he’ll quickly discover he’s on the wrong side of history.”
Choo choo! The NEPA case that’s disguised as an oil trainIn the latest episode of CWP’s podcast, The Landscape, Kate and Aaron talk to Sanjay Narayan, managing attorney of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, about a lawsuit over the proposed Uinta Basin oil train that could have major implications for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case is set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in December.
Quick hits Trump announces oil industry favorite Doug Burgum as Interior secretary nomineeNPR | Washington Post | Politico | E&E News | CNN | USA Today | Associated Press | New York Times
Zombie scheme to pump water from under the Mojave Desert re-emerges with DEI branding and a hydrogen pitch Sierra Nevada may hold key to California’s 30×30 goal After failing to derail Teton land swap, Wyoming looks for other ways to acquire federal land for oil Can a lame-duck Congress get anything done for parks?National Parks Conservation Association
Murkowski praises Biden plan on Izembek road Utah politicians look to Trump to allow highway through national conservation area Six Tribes sign historic preservation agreements with National Park ServiceABC 8 News | National Park Service (press release)
Quote of the dayThey keep coming up with different flavors of metaphorical Febreze to spray on this thing.”
—Conservationist Chris Clarke on the latest iteration of the Cadiz water pipeline proposal, Los Angeles Times
Picture This@usinterior
There are so many incredible sights along the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument. As it flows from Colorado into Utah, the river passes through famous fossil finds, dramatic river canyons, intriguing petroglyphs and endless opportunities for adventure.
Whether you delight in the challenge of a strenuous hike, the thrill of rafting through a twisting canyon or watching the sunset, there are a variety of activities for you to enjoy.
Photo at @dinosaurnps by Nancy Danna
#dinosaurnationalmonument #colorado #utah #usinterior
Alt Text: Looking through a gap between two twisted tree trunks, a distant river flows through dramatic canyons on a partly cloudy afternoon.
The post Burgum to lead Interior appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
The Hub 11/15/2024: Clean Air Council’s Weekly Round-up of Transportation News
“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
TAKE ACTION: Tell Governor Shapiro to direct PennDOT to allocate highway funds to transit immediately. The governor must use an executive order to save public transit. Tell Governor Shapiro to ACT NOW!
Image Source: The InquirerThe Inquirer: SEPTA rides may cost 21% more starting in January; severe service cuts could soon follow – SEPTA published a legal notice proposing a 21.5% increase to fares by January 1. Fare for riders in Philadelphia will increase to $2.90 through all payment methods. This increase is a result of the annual structural deficit of $240 million that the agency currently faces and the fact that the PA legislature and Governor Shapiro did not find a funding solution for public transportation. There is also a possible 20% service cut starting next fiscal year.
Image Source: PlanPhillyPlanPhilly: Car-free streets will return to Philly’s Rittenhouse Square this winter. Here’s what to know – On December 8 and 15 streets near Rittenhouse Square in Center City will be closed to all vehicular traffic and become a pedestrian-only space. For these two Sundays, families, shoppers, and pedestrians will be able to stroll the area car-free. A similar car-free street program occurred in September and retailers saw an increase in sales.
Next City: Blocking the Bus Lane? Cities Are Using AI To Find and Fine You – Many cities are installing cameras on buses to ticket drivers blocking bus-only lanes. This aims to reduce obstructions that slow bus speed and increase transit travel time. In 2023, SEPTA participated in a 70-day pilot by adding automated enforcement cameras on two bus lines. During this period the transit agency recorded 36,000 lane violations which significantly delayed transit riders. This tool can help cities to keep bus lanes clear and increase transit speed.
Other StoriesThe Inquirer: SEPTA postpones long-planned bus route overhaul amid likely fare hikes and service cuts
The Inquirer: Off The Rails
The New York Times: As Trump’s New Term Looms, Hochul Considers Reviving Congestion Pricing
Streetsblog USA: How State DOTs Keep the Public In the Dark About How They Spend Our Transportation Dollars
Mass Transit: NJ Transit Board approves contract with ACI-Herzog JV to operate Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system
Transcript: Choo! Choo! NEPA heads to the Supreme Court disguised as an oil train
This is an automatically generated transcript. Please excuse spelling and grammar errors.
Aaron: Welcome to The Landscape, your show about America’s parks and public lands. I’m Aaron Weiss with the Center For Western Priorities in Denver.
Kate: And I’m Kate Groetzinger in Salt Lake City. In today’s episode, we’ll get into the weeds of a lawsuit over the proposed Uinta Basin oil train that could have some major implications for the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. The case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court in December. We’ve got an attorney representing the Sierra Club in the case on the line to talk about what’s at stake. But before we get to that, let’s do the news.
Aaron: Well, you may have heard that Donald Trump won the election. As far as our public lands go, I think I’m just gonna quote Pete from Mad Men on that one. Not great, Bob. We had a pretty good idea of what Trump intends to do with the interior department even before the election, thanks to project 2025. But now even more details have started to come through.
The New York Times spoke to a number of unnamed sources inside the Trump transition team and confirmed that Trump plans to try to reduce the sizes of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments, just like he did last time. Of course, that all got tied up in court, and the final legal ruling there is still up in the air. Trump also plans to bring back his, quote, energy dominance agenda, which is to say opening up most public lands to extraction with very few safeguards, tossing out regulations that were implemented under the Biden administration that hold oil and gas companies accountable for their pollution and forces them to clean up. President Trump is also likely to try to move the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters back to Grand Junction, Colorado just like he did last time around. That time, it resulted in a mass exodus from the agency.
It was a brain drain of decades worth of experience, and all of that made it harder for BLM officials to advocate for western public lands because they weren’t at the table in Washington when decisions were getting made. And that, of course, was the entire point of the exercise the first time around. Breaking the Bureau of Land Management was a feature, not a bug. There is, of course, plenty more to come and a full election postmortem that we’ll be getting into in the weeks to come.
Kate: Our guest today is Sanjay Narayan. He’s the managing attorney of the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. Thank you so much for being here, Sanjay.
Sanjay: It’s my pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Kate: So let’s start with a softball. What is the Uinta Basin Railway Project?
Sanjay: Mhmm. So, the railway project is about an 85 mile railway line that has been proposed in Utah that would connect the basin, an area in northeast Utah, to the main interstate national rail network. Now the basin is basically an extraction site. It’s a place where there is a fair amount of crude oil, natural gas, and coal, for example. But because it’s surrounded by mountains, there’s relatively limited road access.
There’s just sort of a 2 lane highway going in and out. So the idea behind this rail project is to make it easier to extract those fossil fuels and other sorts of extracted resources and get them to market.
Kate: Can I ask real quick, how are they moving those products right now?
Sanjay: My understanding is that it’s by trucks along you know, you can imagine a narrow two lane road going through the mountains. Right? So very laboriously and slowly is sort of the answer.
Aaron: So who’s making the decisions here, in terms of whether this project can, can move forward?
Sanjay: So for projects like this, there’s actually a federal independent agency called the Surface Transportation Board. This was the successor to what was the interstate commerce commission. They cover a lot of things, but one of the things that they cover are proposals for new railway lines like this one. And they’re an independent agency, so they have 5 members who are nominated by presidents and serve for a term, and they’re the ones who decide whether our way of life like this is in the public interest or not.
Kate: So we’ll get into some of the legal back and forth that’s gone on, but can you tell us what is controversial about this project and why, for example, your employer, the Sierra Club, is interested in this, and specifically interested in stopping it?
Sanjay: So as with most fossil fuel projects here, you know, the issues range from a series of quite local issues to sort of the big global one. Maybe I’ll just start by flagging the big global one because with fossil fuels, I think it’s always or at least should be top of mind. Right? And when you’re talking about natural gas and coal and oil, these are all greenhouse gas, gases, and climate pollutants. And when you do something like this that is meant to enable more extraction, you are basically putting us in a world where we’re going to have more severe climate change faster, and that is always going to be a concern for groups like the Sierra Club and other environmental nonprofits.
But this one, you know and, again, this is true of most extraction projects. It also poses a series of much more local concerns, and I’ll just run down maybe the what I think I’ve decided, the big three of them. I mean, the first is you have the extraction itself. In this space, it already has a lot of extraction. These things I mean, if you’re living next to 1, you are going to be exposed to toxic pollution, I mean, a number of things that are quite bad for your health and your kids’ health and your family’s health.
So there’s the impact in the basin itself. There is, in this case, the way this rail line is going to work. The whole idea is to enable crude oil to go down this rail line to the main network. And what that means is many more trains packed with crude oil running down the lines. We know the trains have occasional derailments, for example. I mean, this one’s going next to the Colorado River.
Right? Right. So you don’t have to have much imagination to picture what a derailment of a train full of crude oil would mean running down next to the Colorado River. Right? So the communities that are next to these rail lines, I think, have their own concerns as to what this means for them.
And then finally, you know, this oil is all meant to go to refineries, mostly along the Gulf Coast, and be refined there. Refining has quite significant consequences for the people who live around the refineries. So to the extent that we are not talking about more refining and crude oil like those communities too, I think, has some concerns about what more refining for longer means for them. So all of those, you know, you can sort of picture this string of communities, all of whom have concerns. The Sierra Club has members in lots of those communities.
So we have both the big concern and then a series of smaller concerns along the way.
Aaron: Some of those smaller concerns, especially along the river, as I understand it, that one of the concerns that if something was to happen, the cleanup prospects, or the disaster prospects, if you had something like what happened in Ohio last year, that sort of situation in a slot canyon along the Colorado River, it sounds like that would be, you know, an order of magnitude more challenging.
Sanjay: I think that’s right. You know, I would say that, you know, anytime you have a water body involved, right, you’ve made your cleanup operation much more challenging and really lowered the ceiling on the sort of best case scenario after your cleanup. And then when you’re talking about, right, mountains and canyons and, you know, crude oil and natural gas, the prospects are really quite grim. Although, you know, I’m trying to. I don’t wanna minimize the consequences of what happened in Ohio either. Right?
I mean, even if it’s it’s no less grim than
Aaron: That was disastrous enough, and that was an interruption.
Sanjay: It doesn’t have to be more grim than that to be something that we should be very worried about. Yeah.
Kate: So you mentioned the Surface Transportation Board earlier. Did they approve this project? And was there that when the lawsuit started? Can you take us back and sort of talk through maybe the approval and then the beginning of the lawsuit? When did the legal challenge begin?
Sanjay: So, yes. They approved it. The way that, you know, these and most agencies work is that, you know, before they make a decision like this, they have a lot of process. Right? And usually that process allows the public to come in and, you know, offer their comments and thoughts.
And, ideally, you know, the law we’re talking about here, the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, kind of helps inform that process. So the service transportation board approved the railway at the very end of 2021, And then for decisions like this, groups who wanna challenge that go straight to the federal court of appeals, so sort of the middle layer of the federal court system. So the Sierra Club and a series of other groups, all filed suits. Challenged that decision in the beginning of 2022, and then separately, Eagle County filed its own petition challenging approval also in the same time frame.
Aaron: So it feels like this case has quickly become about more than just this oil train. Can you explain, what else is at stake and how a case like this, kind of expands in scope or in the potential impact?
Sanjay: The case now has become about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and before I get to exactly what the case is, maybe I’ll just briefly tell you what NEPA is meant to do. So NEPA is a statute that if I were to sort of give a tagline, it’s its look before you leap. The idea here is that before agencies take actions that could have significant environmental consequences, they should, you know, take a beat and look at those consequences, not really for two reasons. I mean, the first is because the government is meant to be serving public interest. Right?
And the way to do that is to make sure that you have your eyes open to the full scope of everything that you’re doing, you know, before you take the action. Because one thing we’ve learned is that once you start the action, right, then at a minimum, it is much more expensive and time consuming to sort of alter course. And then the second thing that that does is it gives the public the chance to have clean visibility into what its government is doing and to provide its own thoughts as to, yeah, this is something you should worry about. Right? In this case, maybe we’re not so keen to have oil trains running down our river.
So so NEPA has, you know, since now for a long time, I think it was passed since, actually, it has served this purpose of both making sure the government acts without blinders, and making sure that the public has visibility into important actions that that that agencies are taking that that will sort of affect the quality of their environment. Between the decision of the DC Circuit in this case and its, you know, current step out of the Supreme Court, the case moved from being about whether the service transportation board complied with the rules when it approved this railway to bring about what those rules are in the first place. And that’s typical when you move up to the supreme court. Right? The Supreme Court tends to wanna decide what the rules are or not. It doesn’t engage in sort of details to how courts apply those rules mostly. So now this case has become about the fundamental ground rules governing how the agencies comply with NEPA when they make decisions affecting the environment.
Aaron: What then will this court be looking at, and what are the potential implications? Obviously, when you talk about a supreme court that right now has a strong anti regulatory bent, to say the least, and a 6 three conservative majority, What are the potential impacts, or how far could this court go with this case to to kneecap NEPA?
Sanjay: I mean, only because this particular court manages to surprise me when I make worst case predictions, I hesitate to offer you a worst case. But but let me tell you what the petitioners, the people who are up in front of the Supreme Court, which are a series of counties that that, are backing the railway, but themselves backed by the American Petroleum Industry and and, you know, essentially, the the the big guns of the fossil fuel industry. Like, let me start by trying to tell you what they’re asking for. So the question here is, you know, what environmental effects should an agency be looking at under NEPA when it takes an action like this one, right, an action that that we know has significant effects for the environment. And for years, years, I mean, really, this has been one of the most stable rules.
There have been sort of 2 guidelines as to what agencies have to think about. The first, and the guideline that has really been quite stable, is that agencies have to look at reasonably foreseeable effects. That was sort of the rule until congress amended NEPA just relatively recently, and now congress wrote that into the statute. Agents have to look at reasonably foreseeable access. And what that has meant is that, you know, agencies don’t have to speculate.
Right? They don’t have to kind of guess at the unknowable, or or anything like that. But if there’s information that they have access to, they need to think about it. Right? If they can sort of predict in this case, right, to give you an example, the the product proponents have have provide a pretty clear sense as to which refineries are meant to be refining or go or to be refining the oil, and they have a pretty good sense as to how extraction works in the basin.
Right? So the idea is, like, you could see those things. You should at least think about them. And then the second rule is that agencies don’t have to worry about effects that they have no power to prevent. Right?
So if some particular environmental effect is essentially irrelevant to the agency’s decision, you don’t have to think about that. So if you put it together, right, it’s sort of a common sense rule. If there’s an environmental fact that you can see or that you could see if you tried, and if it’s relevant to your decision such that you can do something about it, then the AG is supposed to think about it.
Aaron: It’s not a crystal ball, but it is projecting from what you know right now.
Sanjay: Yeah. I mean, let’s do a little bit of work. Right? Like, if you can do a little bit of research and figure it out, like, why don’t you do that? And, again, I would say that that’s just a component of good decision making.
Right? Like, before you make a big decision, do some research.
Kate: And my understanding of NEPA is that you can still, even after you’ve done that research, make the bad decision. You just have to do the research. Is that right?
Sanjay: That’s right. Yeah. This is really just about making sure that you’re making an informed decision and that the public is informed about what its government is doing. Right? Those are the 2 things happening here.
If the government, yeah. They can look at that and say, oh, yeah. You know, we don’t care. But, yeah, you would hope your government would care. It’s sort of their job.
And if they do that, then, you know, the public has some recourse to say, like, okay. You know, look at the same age it did something that’s terrible. This is what democratic politics are for. Right? So that’s how it’s meant to work.
One of the oddities of this case is that the petitioners asked for one thing when they asked the supreme court to take the case, and then they changed and asked for something else once the court actually took the case. So there’s sort of 2 things floating around, and I don’t think anyone quite knows which one they really want. But when they asked the Supreme Court to take the case, what they said is, like, the way this should work instead is an agency should only have to think about the effects over which they have direct regulatory control. Right? So the service transportation board has direct control over the railway.
They only have to think about the railway. They do not regulate either extraction or refining. They shouldn’t have to think about that. So what you have then is just an extremely siloed version of agency decision making.
Aaron: Where no one is having to think about the big picture of climate impacts. Yeah. Yeah.
Sanjay: In my view, this is a recipe for making stupid decisions. Right? Like, if, if you think about the idea here, what you want is good government, you know, the idea of building a railway to connect extraction, that might be a bad idea to refining, but also might be a bad idea. I mean, you know, at best, that gives you a useless railway. Right?
Like, it’s not the way that anyone would think about decisions that are online. It’s not the way you want your government to be thinking. Right.
Aaron: What the train is being used for is relevant to every step of the conversation.
Sanjay: Right. Exactly. Like, you know, like, if those things are bad ideas, this railway is a bad idea too. So you would think that rather than build, I don’t know, a railway to nowhere. Right?
Or more likely, a railway that makes it much easier to do things that you know are not going to be good for the public. Why not think about that, you know, before you start the whole project rather than doing this in kind of a I mean, in some ways, this is a recipe for decision making that’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Right? Where everybody, like, touches a piece and they each come up to their own opinions. Like, why not just think about the elephant?
So that’s what they asked for when they asked the Supreme Court to take the case. As it turns out, that’s quite a bad argument because in NEPA’s text, it has provisions that require agencies to talk to the other agencies about areas of overlapping jurisdiction. So it’s pretty clear that that’s not what congress had in mind. Right? Like, if they told you to go talk to other agencies whose jurisdiction covers other effects, clearly those effects are within the bounds of what you’re meant to be thinking about.
Maybe, I don’t know why they changed courses, but maybe that’s why. Once they got to the Supreme Court, they raised a different argument, which is that instead the scope of the effects the agencies should be thinking about should be governed by something called proximate effects. Now that is a legal term that is imported from, tort law, the area that governs personal liability, things like product liability or or sort of who pays whom if there’s an auto accident. It’s in that realm of sort of basically who might be financially liable, for a given accident or or mistake. You know, and, again, just to give you my own thoughts, that too is a recipe for kind of dumb decision making, because, you know, what that body of law is meant to do is decide whether, you know, if I’m in an auto accident, do I pay the other person or do they pay me?
That is, you know, a private citizen view of the world. The government is or you should be doing something very different. Right? They’re gonna be thinking about the public interest. To give you something that sort of is close to home here, like, yeah, I’ve got a daughter who’s going to be getting behind the wheel of a car very soon.
Now, you know, one thing I could think about is, like, okay. What am I gonna be financially liable for, once she gets behind the car? But that’s not my job. Right? My job is to, like, in her best interest to make sure she’s safe, and you would not like, no parent would only think about, like, what they’re gonna be on the hook for money wise.
And, you know, in general, that should be the government’s view. Right? Like, we are looking after the public. Yeah, you may not be financially liable for the oil that gets dumped into the Colorado River. You know, if a train operator makes a mistake, we should still be thinking about it.
And if, you know, if you’re one of those communities near the river, you absolutely want your government thinking about that. Right? So, again, like, just sort of a fundamental mismatch between the purpose of the rules that they are trying to import and what NEPA does in the real world.
Kate: Can I just jump into it? It sounds like they’re kind of thinking it’s like they want the government to think about this as if the government was a private business and not the government.
Sanjay: I think that I mean, that is that’s what they’re saying. Yes. I mean, really, I think if you just look at the parties lined up here, they want the government to be thinking about less. Right? I mean, you know, these are parties who want their extraction, and, you know, for their own purposes, they’re not, I think, especially interested in the public welfare because that can get in the way.
Right? So they want fewer obstacles to their end business result, right, which is the ability to extract faster and greater profit.
Kate: So what is at stake for NEPA? Could this handicap NEPA in a big way?
Sanjay: Yes. It could. I mean, I think that is very much the purpose of the lawsuit. Right? That, I mean, that is why you take a case like this to the supreme court if you are the people behind this particular lawsuit.
I’ll say that if they take the route that the petitioners are asking for, in their current case, in the merits briefs, this idea of bringing in sort of liability concepts, private liability concepts into NEPA. I mean, not only would it handicap NEPA, it would just make the entire regime unpredictable and messy, because I had never bought something. It’s been, you know, years since I’ve thought about that area of law. But my friends who practice over there, the one thing they tell me is, like, look. We’ve been doing this for 20 years.
None of us really understand these rules because they are very confusing. So, you know, what you’ll be moving, you’ll be importing a body of law that itself is really unsettled, into an area of law where it doesn’t really make any sense. So, yeah, I think NEPA would work less well, but I think what you also get is a regime that would be chaotic, in terms of what it requires or even how courts are meant to apply it. The government in general is not financially liable for very much. Right?
Like, financially, it’s just not something that applies to government practice. So the idea of figuring out how those rules designed to do something completely different and which are very unstable even in that completely different realm, importing those into into this realm, I don’t think anybody could tell you how that’s going to go or what kinds of results it’s going to produce except that, it would be chaotic and would likely prevent NEPA from doing what it’s supposed to do. Again, like, informing the public and giving you good government decision making.
Aaron: So how helpful is NEPA if it is weakened to the extent that the plaintiffs would like to see it weakened in this case? Is that a fair
Sanjay: Yeah. I mean, I’m fairly confident what you would not get is clear eye decision making Mhmm. And a well informed public as to what its agencies are doing. What I’m not confident to tell you is what exactly you would get Sure. Because it’s just a very strange world to kind of get your head around.
And I think, you know, courts would spend years struggling with exactly what that means, how to apply it. It would take a long time for all of that to settle out into any set of rules that any of us could sort of properly understand and and and apply.
Kate: So I do have one question. I assume NEPA has gone before the Supreme Court before? Is there precedent here? Do we have any, anything pointing to how they may, you know, what they may be considering when they make this decision?
Sanjay: I mean, it has gone up in front of the Supreme Court a couple times. It’s not, let’s say, a frequent visitor to the Supreme Court. In the past, it’s gone up. What the court has actually said is, no.
No. Yeah. At best, this realm of a product liability law is kind of a loose analogy, but it is then going on to say, but to be clear, those rules don’t apply here. So what we have by way of precedent are cases that quite clearly reject this view, and again the statute on its face rejects the other thing, like the idea that you have a silo decision making process. So on that front, if we had a supreme court that rigorously followed precedent, you would say, well, there’s not much reason for concern here.
The problem is that this particular court, I think, is quite suspicious of older presidents, and I don’t think that’s, like, a secret. But but that suspicion makes me at least wonder, okay. So you have these presidents, but but we know that this court has always liked older supreme court precedent. So to what extent are they going to be either openly or quietly willing to to walk away from what other justices have said in the past? That I think it is some concern here.
Aaron: Does president Trump’s president-elect Trump’s win change the legal situation here at all or change the stakes of this case?
Sanjay: So as to the first of those, the case will be fully briefed and argued before president Trump starts the second term. So, normally, that makes it quite difficult for the government to kind of change positions. And to be clear, you know, right, what the Biden administration did was to take a position kinda kinda between our groups and what the private petitioners want. So they agreed that the rules the petitioners are trying to oppose wouldn’t make much sense, but they made a bid for essentially more government discretion to decide when and how to apply NEPA. So if the Trump administration disagreed with that or wanted to just adopt a particular view, normally, that would be hard for them to do it’d be hard for them to kind of change horses.
Having said that, you know, if we’re in a world of attorney general Matt Getz, like, I actually don’t know that the way in which the Department of Justice and the Security General have behaved in the past is, like, a safe ground to predict what might happen.
Aaron: All norms alright. All norms are out the window right now. Yeah.
Sanjay: Yeah. So normally, I would say no. This does not appear to be a normal time. So that’s, you know, this particular case. In terms of the stakes, I mean, I think it does change the stakes because whatever the supreme court says I mean, there are 3 paths.
Right? They can sort of say we’re gonna leave the world as it was. Much to be hoped for, not really the approach this court has been inclined to take by reflex, or they could adopt one of the views that either the government or the petitioner had put before them. In any case, those are all very vague rules, and it’s going to take the lower courts years to figure out what they mean. The idea of having president Trump guiding that future process, right,
Aaron: you know Or Matt Gaetz for that.
Sanjay: Or Matt Gaetz. Right? Like, the federal government generally has a lot of room to take these supreme court decisions and sort of sort out what they need on the ground. And I think, you know, if you ask the people coming to power, they would say, yeah. We are going to take whatever rules we get and push them in a direction of maximum extraction with limit with minimal process.
Right? That’s what that’s their campaign slogan or that’s what they say in this field. So what you would expect is that whatever rules the Supreme Court hands down, the Trump administration will push to the logical extreme and probably beyond in ways that would favor attraction and and disserve the public.
Kate: Sorry. I just wanted to go back to the question, prior to this, which was, does anything change, about the case itself because of Trump’s win? Because this is going to be argued before he takes office, you said. And I just wanna make sure I understand. So there’s no way that, like, the like, it will be argued and decided before he takes office or no?
Sanjay: Well, maybe not. I don’t think I have decided. I mean so the parties normally have, you know, 2 opportunities to to define their positions. Well, 3. Like, one when you ask the court to take the case, another when you file your merits briefs.
Right? If the court takes the case, you then file your briefs before the court, and then the last is that argument. Those are the official ways in which you would sort of establish your position. Now it is theoretically possible I mean, you can put paper in front of the court. You put paper in front of the court.
It is theoretically possible that after January 21st, an administration would say, well, actually, forget what we said before. Now we have a brand new position. You can tell the court that. That has been something that prior generals and departments of justice have been very reluctant to do because it undermines your credibility. Right?
I mean, the role of those institutions is meant to represent the government in a lasting way that that fundamentally, transcends the sort of petty politics of presidential changes. I mean, obviously, there will be policy changes, but your fundamental view of the law, right, is meant to be faithful to the law, and that kind of dramatic flip flop tends to suggest that something else is happening, and every prior, attorney general and solicitor general has been very reluctant to do anything more than say, look, our policy view on the underlying issue has changed. Right? Like, so maybe we think that what’s a good idea is now a bad idea, but this idea that no. No.
Actually, like, forget what we said about the law. What we said about the law just changes every time the president shifts. That’s been a move that prior attorneys have not wanted to make. Again, I I don’t know what that attorney general, Matt Gaetz, if that’s who it is, is going to care about that sort of binding norm, in the department of justice. But if they do, it would be at least a very unusual move to try to change views dramatically.
Kate: I see. I see. So as the kids say, I would like to live in unprecedented times.
Sanjay: Right. No. I mean, enjoy the next month.
Aaron: Yeah.
Kate: Right. One final question for you before we let you go. What does all this mean for the train? It seems like this case has gotten fairly far afield from the actual train on the ground itself. Will their decision in this case decide whether the train moves forward or not, or is that, will that continue to be litigated?
Sanjay: No. I mean, one of the oddities of this case is that the DC Circuit, the court that decided this before it got to the Supreme Court, actually, found that there were multiple flaws in the way the board approached this. I mean, among other things, they didn’t properly comply with the Nature of Species Act, and none of that is before the supreme court. So, you know, whatever the court rules, there’s work to be done, and frankly, even here, if the court announces that NEPA is governed by some new rule, ANGI would still have to think about that new rule. Now again, NEPA does not dictate results.
Right? So at the end of the day, the STB has a decision to make. It’s an independent agency, so it has, you know, 5 members, and it’s not an agency where where where, well, under the governing law, president Trump just gets to, like, put in whoever he wants, although that itself is just something that we might see contested. I don’t think this administration likes the idea of independent agencies. So, you know, there’s still a ways to go, and and at the end of the day, they’re going to have to decide based on the information in front of
Kate: them. Okay. So the train’s still up in the air.
Sanjay: Yeah. So to speak. Right? I mean, you know, and even the fundamentals of the extent to which the market really is demanding more crude. I mean, you know, who knows where we’re going to be, when this occurs, which again is one of the reasons why you want agencies to be thinking carefully about these things rather than running willy nilly into decisions based on marks that we know go boom and bust.
Kate: Don’t build a train to nowhere. Right. Alright. Well, I think we’ll leave it at that. Our guest today is Sanjay Narayan, managing attorney of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program.
Thank you so much for being here and explaining all of this legal, legal mess to us.
Sanjay: Oh, it’s my pleasure. Thanks very much for having me.
Kate: Let’s end with some good news, shall we? The Bureau of Land Management has quietly reversed a policy related to wilderness study area designations. Here’s the background. During the George w Bush years, the BLM was sued over its use of section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or FLPMA, which basically empowers the agency to designate WSAs as part of land management plans. This is a super powerful tool that allows the BLM to designate areas that are eligible for capital w wilderness designation and protect them so that they remain eligible for protection by congress, which is the only body that can formally designate public land as wilderness.
Anyway, the BLM under Bush settled that lawsuit and essentially made an internal decision to stop designating WSAs through the land management planning process. For the first time in over a decade, the agency has overturned that internal decision and begun designating what are known as section 202 WSAs once again. Now it’s likely the Trump administration will try to undo these and discontinue this practice, but it’s awesome to see the BLM flexing its FLTMA power to protect public lands.
Aaron: And that is it for today folks. As we head into the next 4 years, things are bound to get pretty dark at times. We are committed to finding positive stories to tell as well, especially about conservation progress at the state and the local level. So if you’ve got stories you think we should spotlight, please email us a podcast at westernpriorities.org. Also, go follow us on Blue Sky if you’re there.
We just made an account. It’s pretty easy to find. It’s just westernpriorities.org. We’ll also drop a link to that in the show notes.
Kate: Thanks again to Sanjay for his time today and thank you for listening to the landscape.
The post Transcript: Choo! Choo! NEPA heads to the Supreme Court disguised as an oil train appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Statement on nomination of Doug Burgum as Interior secretary
DENVER—President-elect Donald Trump announced at Mar-a-Lago tonight that he intends to nominate North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum to serve as Secretary of the Interior.
The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Executive Director Jennifer Rokala:
“Doug Burgum comes from an oil state, but North Dakota is not a public lands state. His cozy relationship with oil billionaires may endear him to Donald Trump, but he has no experience that qualifies him to oversee the management of 20 percent of America’s lands.
“Running the Interior department requires someone who can find balance between recreation, conservation, hunting, ranching, mining, and—yes—oil drilling. If Doug Burgum tries to turn America’s public lands into an even bigger cash cow for the oil and gas industry, or tries to shrink America’s parks and national monuments, he’ll quickly discover he’s on the wrong side of history.”
In April 2024, Doug Burgum and oil billionaire Harold Hamm organized a dinner at Mar-a-Lago where Donald Trump suggested oil and gas executives raise $1 billion for his campaign. At the dinner, Trump promised the executives they’d save far more than that after he repealed President Biden’s climate policies.
Quick facts- The federal government owns less than 4 percent of North Dakota’s land — 1.7 million acres out of 44.4 million total acres.
- Seventy percent of Western voters want to protect clean water, air quality and wildlife habitats while providing opportunities to visit and recreate on public lands, compared to just 26 percent of voters who would rather ensure more domestic energy production by maximizing the amount of public lands available for responsible oil and gas drilling and mining, according to Colorado College’s 2024 State of the Rockies poll.
- Prioritizing conservation over maximizing energy production received majority support among Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the poll.
Featured image: Doug Burgum by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0
The post Statement on nomination of Doug Burgum as Interior secretary appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Choo! Choo! NEPA heads to the Supreme Court disguised as an oil train
Kate and Aaron talk to Sanjay Narayan, managing attorney of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, about a lawsuit over the proposed Uinta Basin oil train that could have some major implications for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case is set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in December.
News- With Ready Orders and an Energy Czar, Trump Plots Pivot to Fossil Fuels – New York Times
- BLM revives long-dormant wilderness protection policy – E&E News
- Supreme Court Takes Up Case Challenging Utah’s Uinta Basin Railway
- Follow us on Bluesky
- Episode transcript
Hosts: Kate Groetzinger & Aaron Weiss
Feedback: podcast@westernpriorities.org
Music: Purple Planet
Featured image: Oil and Gas fracking sand facility in Uintah County, Utah; arbyreed/Flickr
The post Choo! Choo! NEPA heads to the Supreme Court disguised as an oil train appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Clean Air Council Enters a New Era of Board Leadership
November 14, 2024 – Clean Air Council is pleased to announce the newly elected officers of Clean Air Council’s Board of Directors: Co-Presidents Carolyn Hewson and Oscar Wang, Vice President Laura Blank, Treasurer Jeff Aldi, and Secretary Ben Cromie. While Board officer elections happen each year, this year’s election on October 16th was particularly momentous: Clean Air Council’s Board President of 25 years, Russ Allen, opted not to run for reelection, passing the reins to a new generation of leadership. Allen presided over decades of historic growth and programmatic victories at the Council. He culminated his tenure by overseeing the successful transition of leadership to new Executive Director, Alex Bomstein, after the retirement of the Council’s longtime Executive Director, Joseph Minott. Allen will remain a member of the Council’s Board. The Council is deeply grateful for his decades of service and leadership.
“The Council is in great hands with our dedicated and talented new Board Co-Presidents and Executive Officers,” said Alex Bomstein, Clean Air Council Executive Director. “The Board’s Executive Team has already shown strong internal leadership and a knack for navigating organizational affairs.”
Hewson, Senior Director, Strategic Initiatives at Penn Medicine, has been a member of the Board since 2021 and began serving as Board Vice President earlier this year. She recently led the Council in the creation of a new strategic plan. Wang, Founder and CEO of College Together, has been a member of the Board since 2021 and Board Vice President since 2022. In addition to serving as Vice President, he was recently a member of the Board’s Executive Director Search Committee. Blank, Director of Leadership Coaching and Strategy at School Wellbeing Solutions, was a member of the Board from 2009-2013 and then from 2019 until now and serves on the Board’s Personnel and Compensation Committee. Aldi, Vice President of Finance and Accounting at Comcast, has been a member of the Board since 2010, and has been Board Treasurer since 2010. Cromie, Senior Planner at CHPlanning, who has been a member of the Board since 2018, recently served as a Board representative to the Strategic Planning Committee.
More information about Clean Air Council’s Board of Directors is available here.
Trump 2.0 vs. the planet
One week after the victory of President-elect Donald Trump, the implications of his second term on climate change and the West are coming into focus. As Sammy Roth writes in the L.A. Times’ Boiling Point newsletter, Trump’s return means “the same types of people who populated his first administration—many of them fossil fuel lobbyists and climate deniers—will be back in power.” Trump’s agenda, including the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the trying to repeal oil and gas reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act, prioritizes fossil fuels and deregulation.
Jonathan Thompson, in his Land Desk newsletter, takes a deep dive into what Trump policies may mean for public lands. “[J]udging from Trump’s platform, promises, and his first-term record,” Thompson writes, “we do know he and his minions will set out to dismantle the administrative state, which is to say gut federal agencies, replace experienced staffers with Trump loyalists, and remove government protections on human health, the environment, and worker safety.”
Thompson anticipates a reversal of the Biden-era ban on drilling near Chaco Culture National Historic Park and Colorado’s Thompson Divide, and an attempt to dismantle the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, which provides a framework for conservation and recreation as an explicit use of public lands, alongside grazing and extraction.
Over at Heated, Emily Atkin writes about the implications of Trump’s EPA nominee, Lee Zeldin. Atkin notes that Zeldin’s first tweet after his nomination said he would “use the EPA to ‘restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI’—three things that have nothing to do with human health or the environment.”
With that assault on the planet already taking shape, Atkin looks at the prospects of more grassroots activism during Trump’s second term. The Sunrise Movement plans to expand the school strikes that made headlines in 2020, and eventually grow to a general worker strike if Trump’s climate policies get even more extreme.
Correction: Tuesday’s Look West said that Lee Zeldin was a former congressman from Florida. He is from New York.
Quick hits How Gavin Newsom is “Trump-proofing” California Coal barons start backtracking on promises while Exxon CEO warns GOP to not go too farBloomberg (Regulations) | Bloomberg (Coal CEO) | Politico
DC Circuit delivers shock ruling invalidating White House CEQ power to issue enviro regulations Trump win could revive disastrous BLM move to Grand Junction Utah lawmakers hint at “war” in land grab lawsuit BLM sage-grouse plan met with cautious optimism and skepticismBoise State Public Radio | Wyofile
Tucson takes another step toward protecting Santa Cruz River Opinion: The fight to tell America’s history on public lands will continue under Trump Quote of the dayWe gotta get used to talking to regular-ass people. We have to be creating campaigns that aren’t just getting people that agree with us to donate $5, but that are getting people out, knocking on doors and having the millions of conversations needed to actually bring new people into the movement.”
—Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, Heated
@usinterior
Look at those giant paws! Canada lynx have large feet that act like snowshoes, keeping them nimble as they saunter through deep, powdery snow. As elusive creatures, they hunt in the shadow hours of dawn and dusk for their favorite meal, the snowshoe hare.
Photo by NPS
The post Trump 2.0 vs. the planet appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
As Trump fills his cabinet, Biden pushes to lock in environmental legacy
As President-elect Donald Trump announces his choices for high-level positions in his administration, his environmental plans are coming into focus.
Former New York congressman Lee Zeldin will head the Environmental Protection Agency. During Zeldin’s time in the House, he voted against clean air legislation at least a half dozen times and against clean water bills at least a dozen times, according to the League of Conservation Voters. Zeldin has a 14 percent lifetime score from LCV. Trump said that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.”
The New York Times reports that Trump’s former Interior secretary, David Bernhardt, is working on the transition team that is preparing a slate of executive orders. Those orders include shrinking national monuments in the West to allow more drilling and mining on public lands, and eliminating every office across the federal government that works to limit pollution that disproportionately affects poor communities.
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s administration is working to “Trump-proof” his climate and environmental legacy. That includes finalizing plans to protect the greater sage-grouse across the West and limit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Biden administration is also planning to deliver billions of dollars in climate and clean energy grants in the coming months. White House clean energy adviser John Podesta said the administration had issued $98 billion in grants by the end of the fiscal year that ended in September—88 percent of the funding available—with the rest on the way before Biden leaves office.
Quick hits Western states brace for Trump’s environmental impactDenver Post | KSL | Texas Tribune | New York Times | Bloomberg
“Almost cartoonishly evil:” Zeldin to head EPANew York Times | The New Republic | E&E News | CNN | NPR
Biden team works to lock in climate legacy, finalizes sage-grouse and Arctic protectionsWashington Post | New York Times | CNN | Associated Press | Post Independent
Enviro groups call for Biden to take ‘bold action’ as climate summit kicks offThe Independent | New York Times
76 Alaska Native tribes tell Haaland to ditch ‘reckless’ Izembek road reviewE&E News | Anchorage Daily News (opinion)
Utah’s land grab gets support from Nevada county commissioners New Mexico considers ban on ‘forever chemicals’ in oil and gas operations Colorado drillers say they’ve reduced methane emissions by 95%. Watchdogs aren’t so sure Quote of the dayThis is not the end of our fight for a cleaner, safer planet. The fight is bigger than one election or political cycle.”
—White House clean energy adviser John Podesta, New York Times
Picture This@nationalparkservice
The most popular porcupine hobby is needlepoint.
Quilting is a close second. Fun fact! A porcupine has approximately 30,000 quills on its body? Needle bit a love? Umm, no thanks, not a hugger. We repeat. Not. A. Hugger. Did you know porcupines don’t throw their quills? Don’t get us wrong, they may throw some sassy barbs, (Porcupines are vocal critters and create a wide array of verbal cues, including shrill screeches, coughs, groans, whines, passive aggressive insults, and teeth chatters) but alas, no quill launching. However, on occasion, loose quills will fall out (awkward), creating the illusion that they’re being launched. We apologize that it took so long to get to the point.
Bonus: Not to keep you on pins and needles, but a group of porcupines is called a prickle. A baby porcupine is called a porcupette.
Image: A porcupine perched in a tree at Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. NPS/ Patrick Meyers
Featured image: Lee Zeldin, President-elect Trump’s pick for EPA administrator, in 2019. Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0The post As Trump fills his cabinet, Biden pushes to lock in environmental legacy appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Wyoming approves sale of Kelly Parcel to Grand Teton National Park
In a 3-2 vote, the Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners approved a sale of the Kelly Parcel to Grand Teton National Park for no less than $100 million, contingent on gubernatorial approval of the Bureau of Land Management’s Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. If completed, the sale will ensure the landscape is conserved for future generations.
The Kelly Parcel is a 640-acre parcel of state school trust land that borders Grand Teton National Park. It serves as important habitat for Rocky Mountain wildlife and connects to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem—one of the largest intact temperate ecosystems in the world. It’s also an essential pronghorn migration route.
Efforts to transfer the land have been ongoing for nearly 15 years. The state had been considering auctioning off the land to the highest bidder, which piqued the interest of developers because of the area’s high-value views of the iconic Teton Range. The plan received pushback, and over the past three years, thousands of Wyomingites voiced their support for conserving the parcel during public hearings and rallies.
The transaction’s completion is dependent on Governor Mark Gordon’s approval of the Bureau of Land Management’s Rock Springs Resource Management Plan. The state said this will only happen if the plan is changed to include increased allowance for hunting and grazing, and if the BLM takes the governor’s feedback into account in the final management plan.
Georgia’s world-renowned Okefenokee Swamp could be taken out by miningThe Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is an important ecosystem for migratory birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, including several threatened and endangered species, yet it is under threat from a company seeking to establish a titanium dioxide mine at its doorstep. Fortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is offering a proposal to expand the wildlife refuge in order to safeguard this unique landscape.
Read the latest blog post about the the world-renowned refuge and the effort to protect it from the impacts of mining as part of the Center for Western Priorities’ Road to 30: Postcards campaign to share the stories of the people behind efforts to protect special places across the country
Look West will be taking a break on Monday, November 11 in observation of Veterans Day. We’ll be back on Tuesday!
Quick hits Wyoming officials approve of Kelly Parcel sale to Grand Teton National ParkWyoFile | Jackson Hole News & Guide | Casper Star Tribune | Buckrail
Georgia’s Okefenokee swamp could be taken out by mining. Expanding Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge could help Climate change identified as main driver of worsening drought in the Western United States On a collision course: National parks, Project 2025, and President Trump Trump will test energy transition—at home and abroad How social media is influencing our interactions with public lands How will a second Trump presidency shape the Colorado River? Advocates of imperiled lesser prairie chicken say market incentives key to expanding habitat Quote of the dayI am very concerned for the future of the Western U.S., the U.S. as a whole and the world, especially because we are at such a critical moment for limiting catastrophic impacts from climate change. However, history also shows that our action matters. We should not let Trump’s administration decide our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.”
—Rong Fu, UCLA climate researcher, Los Angeles Times
Picture This @nationalparkserviceThe National Park Service has issued a first-ever Director’s Order for agency decision-makers engaging in nation-to-nation consultations with Indian and Alaska Native Tribes, underscoring the agency’s commitment to developing, implementing, and maintaining positive working relationships with Tribes based on transparency, accountability, mutual trust, and responsibility.
The Director’s Order, developed with input from Tribes, codifies and expands existing National Park Service policies and procedures and affirms meaningful consultations with Tribes as a National Park Service policy priority. Park managers will be able to use this policy directive to help facilitate consequential discussions and ensure Tribal input is included early in the park decision-making process on issues that may directly or indirectly affect Tribe’s and their ancestral lands, interests, practices, or traditional use areas.
Learn more at: nps.gov/news
Image: NPS /Cinnamon Dockham
#nationalparks #nativeamericanheritagemonth #parks #nationalparkservice
(Featured image: Grand Teton National Park. James St. John, Flickr)
The post Wyoming approves sale of Kelly Parcel to Grand Teton National Park appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.