News Archives - Page 9 of 40

  • October 4th, 2017

    Once again the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is poised to auction off outstanding federal public lands in redrock country for fossil fuel development. The latest ill-conceived proposal targets some of the most culturally significant and dramatic lands in southeastern Utah, threatening the region’s air quality, cultural resources, dark night skies, wilderness-caliber landscapes, and even national monuments—including Bears Ears.

    Tell the BLM this outrageous proposal to lease and develop public lands is completely unacceptable.

    Tin Cup Mesa. Copyright Neal Clark/SUWA

    Not only is this lease sale terribly misguided, it’s also totally unnecessary. At the end of the BLM’s 2016 fiscal year, about 1.1 million acres of BLM managed lands in Utah were in production out of approximately 2.9 million acres leased to oil and gas operators—that’s less than forty percent of the total land under lease. Given the current surplus of oil and gas leases in Utah, there is simply no need to open up more public land to fossil fuel development, particularly in sensitive and wild places.

    Click here to tell the BLM not to auction off our natural and cultural heritage to the fossil fuel industry.

    Specifically, the BLM is proposing to lease for oil and gas development:

    •    Parcels located in the Goldbar Canyon, Hatch Point/ Hatch Canyon, and Labyrinth Canyon proposed wilderness areas in Grand County and the Cross Canyon, Monument Canyon, and Tin Cup Mesa proposed wilderness areas in San Juan County.

    •    Parcels in the Alkali Ridge Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), designated for its impressive density of cultural and archaeological sites. The BLM itself has recognized that the area contains “[l]arge pueblos with complex architecture and connecting prehistoric roads” and calls it “one of the best-known and influential examples of scientific archeological investigation in the southwestern U.S.”

    Under the Trump administration, the BLM is rushing to sacrifice the most outstanding and significant public lands—lands that belong to each and every one of us—for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. If we don’t act, we stand to lose something truly irreplaceable.

    Please stand up for your public lands by submitting comments to the BLM by October 23rd!

    Thank you for taking action.

    >> Click here to view a map of lease parcel locations

    >> Click here to see more photos of lands affected by this lease sale

  • September 18th, 2017

    September 18, 2017

    Laura Peterson, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 801.236.3762
    Stephen Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 801.428.3981

    Last Friday afternoon, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed a lawsuit in Utah’s Third District Court alleging that San Juan County repeatedly violated Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act when county commissioners met with Interior Secretary Zinke, Interior Department officials and Members of Congress in closed-door meetings to discuss the fate of Bears Ears National Monument. In the lawsuit, SUWA asserts that on multiple occasions in May and June of this year, San Juan County commissioners met with Interior Secretary Zinke and other officials in both Utah and Washington, DC regarding the future of Bears Ears National Monument. The meetings were not publicly noticed and county commissioners did not allow members of the public to attend or participate in the meeting.

    “The San Juan County Commission’s repeated closed-door meetings are blatant violations of Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act. County commissioners are required to conduct public business out in the open, not in secret,” said Laura Peterson, staff attorney for SUWA.

    Last month, SUWA filed suit against Kane and Garfield Counties for similar violations of the Open and Public Meetings Act regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

  • September 14th, 2017

    Congress is back in session following its summer vacation and, unfortunately, a return of Congress often means a fresh set of attacks made on public lands. These assaults come in the form of three bills: the so-called Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act, the Native American Energy Act, and the Federal Lands Freedom Act, all of which received docket space in front of the House Committee on Natural Resources over the past two weeks. And make no mistake, the bills’ cheerful, benign-sounding names belie the damage they are designed to inflict on public lands.

    The SHARE Act (H.R. 3668), which passed the House last Congress but died in the Senate, is back for another round and has progressed quickly, advancing yesterday out of the committee just one day after it received a hearing in front of the same body. Though it’s purported to be about improving the experience for sportsmen on public lands, the SHARE Act actually does that by allowing land managers to bypass large portions of the Wilderness Act so long as hunting, fishing, or recreation are being prioritized. Practically speaking, any non-compatible use that could conceivably be pursued in the service of recreation—from building structures and tampering with habitats, to allowing motorized access—would be suddenly allowed in wilderness under the terms of this bill.

    Much of the focus in any press you may have heard on the SHARE Act has centered on America’s gun debate, as the bill contains a provision to ease restrictions on the sale of silencers. But our congressional champions were on the ball regarding the bill’s bad public lands provisions. Amendments that would have improved the bill—one from Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) removing states’ veto power for fishing and hunting restrictions, and one from Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) that would solidify protections for wilderness areas—were defeated on party lines. After crankily accepting roll call votes for each amendment, Committee Chair Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) cheerily accepted the eventual 22-13 party-line vote to advance the bill.

    Also scheduled for a markup this week was the Native American Energy Act (H.R. 210), which rigorously limits citizen engagement and government transparency by amending the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to restrict public input on environmental reviews, diminishing the voices of those who would be affected by potentially catastrophic environmental projects.

    And finally, the Federal Lands Freedom Act (H.R. 3565/S. 335) was given a hearing in the House last week. This piece of legislation is an escalation of the tactics being used by those whose goal is to ultimately privatize and dissolve America’s system of public lands. But rather than proposing to transfer the lands outright, as we’ve seen before, the bill seeks to remove federal oversight of oil and gas drilling on public lands, essentially handing crucial land management decisions over to state authorities. The bill would also limit public access to public lands and circumvent federal environmental laws like NEPA.

    It’s a good reminder that we’re often better off when Congress is in recess, but we’re here watching them when they’re not. As these bills move through Congress, we’ll keep you updated about what you can do to help stop them.

  • September 6th, 2017

    Interior Order sets arbitrary process for completing complex environmental review; poses a direct threat to local community involvement in decision making

    September 6, 2017

    Stephen Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 801.428.3981

    Salt Lake City (Sept. 6, 2017): Heading into last week’s Labor Day weekend the Interior Department quietly issued a Secretarial Order that radically alters how the Department and its agencies prepare environmental analyses and disclose their actions to the public under the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA.  The Order applies to all Interior Department environmental impact statements and provides that additional orders will be issued shortly regarding the more commonly prepared environmental assessments.  These environmental studies are mandated by federal law and are the principal way that the agencies like the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review proposed projects and get public input before committing to actions that will impact the public and local communities.  The Order describes these reviews as “needlessly complex” and suggests that they are “impediments to efficient and effective review.”

    The order would set arbitrary deadlines and length requirements for EISs, by:

    • Requiring that EISs be completed in one year from start to finish.
    • Mandating that analysis be no more than 150 pages in length, or 300 pages where the proposal being evaluated is “unusually complex.”

    “This order undercuts NEPA’s fundamental purposes of ensuring public oversight and informed decision-making, mandating arbitrary timeframes and page limits and setting up another compressed, closed door review,“ said Nada Culver, Senior Director of Agency Policy for The Wilderness Society. “There is no good reason to shortcut or sidestep opportunities for the American public to have a say about what happens on their lands”.

    “The Moab Master Leasing Plan, which took several years of environmental review, analysis and stakeholder engagement, is a great example of how BLM’s NEPA review process works,” said Mary McGann, Grand County (Utah) councilwoman.  “Though the environmental review process took several years, at the end of the day BLM threaded the needle and arrived at a decision which protected places like Arches National Park and gave all parties certainty about the future of oil, gas and mineral development in the heart of Utah’s redrock country.  That careful, collaborative approach wouldn’t have been possible under Interior’s new scheme.”

    “As the controversy surrounding impacts to the Standing Rock Sioux by the Dakota Access Pipeline showed, defective environmental review documents have led to public outcry, injustice that could easily have been avoided, and the perception that federal agencies don’t care about people or environmental values,” said Ted Zukoski, staff attorney with Earthjustice.  “Secretary Zinke should focus on the quality of analysis and encouraging public involvement, not how fast he can please industries seeking profit at the expense of our communities and our beloved national parks, wildlife refuges, and rivers.”

    “This Order is exactly the type of late-night shenanigans we expect from Secretary Zinke’s Interior Department,” said Stephen Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.  “The Order will result in poorer, more hastily made decisions that we expect will favor extractive industry at the expense of our federal public lands.”

    “These late night orders undermine public participation.  They are the latest in a growing number of actions from Secretary Zinke that strike at the heart of our public lands, waters and national parks,” said Ani Kame’enui, director of legislation and policy at the National Parks Conservation Association.  “This Department of Interior’s actions put at greater risk our country’s places of community, origins of history and culture and some of our most iconic landscapes. We are highly concerned that this order could prioritize fast track development over the health and safety of our parks and their visitors.”

    The Order risks the following consequences that will undermine the requirements of NEPA to ensure both public input and informed decision-making:

    • Public, tribal and local, state and federal agency input will have less importance and impact:  The Interior Department agencies will have far less time to take the public’s input into account.  Interior Department agencies will spend less time working with, or considering the input of, cooperating agencies.  It also means consultation with tribal governments will likely be less rigorous.
    • Federal agencies may miss key data: When encountering a significant issue – such as air quality – which requires complex modeling, agencies won’t have the time to do new studies.  It might also deprive the agency the opportunity to perform multiple-year surveys, which may be necessary to understand impacts on wildlife and local communities.
    • Federal agencies may have to spend the same amount in a shorter period: This will mean more resources spent over the short-run.
    • Even more cuts to public oversight and acknowledgment of potential harms before decisions are made. Federal agencies will be recommending yet further narrowing of public input and thoughtful decision-making through a mandated 30-day review, without any oversight or disclosure.
    • Federal agencies will make more mistakes: Cutting corners will mean federal agencies will lose opportunities to build public support for controversial actions and will be more likely to approve needlessly harm to the public health and the environment that further analysis could help avoid.


Page 9 of 40« First...7891011...203040...Last »