Interior updates shutdown plan to push 5-year leasing policy: “The Trump administration
brought employees back to work last Thursday to advance the controversial outer continental shelf five-year leasing plan — just two days after the Interior Department said the work was shelved during the government shutdown. Last week, Interior updated its
contingency plans so 40 employees at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management could be available "on an on-call basis to perform the exempt functions of preparing National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Program decision documents." The work includes conducting
environmental review and finalizing seismic testing permits for energy exploration off the Atlantic coast. "In order to comply with the Administration's America First energy strategy to develop a new [outer continental shelf] Oil and Gas leasing program, work
must continue toward issuing the Proposed Program per the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act requirements," reads the updated shutdown plan, dated Jan. 8. That's the same day Interior officials told E&E News in an email that no one at BOEM was working on
the five-year plan. Industry sources had suspected the five-year leasing plan would be delayed due to the government shutdown. Initially, Interior officials contended that was mere speculation, noting a firm publish date was never given. Today, officials confirmed
BOEM employees resumed work on the five-year plan Thursday. They did not respond to further questions by deadline. The former shutdown plan, dated December 2018, does not mention the outer continental shelf leasing program. It says that BOEM employees would
not work on new energy development and that essential employees would permit ongoing work to buttress sister agency the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the offshore regulator. Last January, the Trump administration's draft five-year plan shocked
coastal residents by proposing to open up 90 percent of the outer continental shelf to oil and gas drilling. Interior officials later clarified that the final version would be winnowed down. But environmentalists wasted little time in suing the federal government.
Last week, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson — a Republican — intervened to fight energy exploration off the Atlantic coast.”
[E&E News, 1/16/19]
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1060114899/search?keyword=national+environmental+policy+act
First Study Of ACE Emission Impacts Finds 19 States Could See More GHGs:
“A new peer-reviewed study of the greenhouse gas and other emission effects of EPA's Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) proposal finds the policy would have the perverse outcome of boosting
GHGs in 19 states by causing almost one-third of existing coal plants to run more often. The Jan. 15 paper is the first to quantify projected GHG and conventional pollution effects from ACE, and it is raising legal questions about the validity of the Trump
administration's approach while also providing ammunition to its opponents. The study will be published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, and was co-written by researchers from Resources For the Future (RFF), Syracuse University and Harvard University's
Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment. The states projected to see the highest GHG increases under ACE in 2030 are California, with a boost of 1.4 million tons; Alabama with 988,000 tons; Wisconsin with 975,000; Maryland with 790,000; Texas
with 782,000; Virginia with 677,000; Tennessee with 597,000; North Carolina with 564,000 and Florida with 400,000, according to a fact sheet accompanying the paper. Ohio would enjoy an 836,000-ton drop in GHGs but would experience an increase of 309,000 tons
of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a 331,000-ton boost in nitrogen oxides (NOx), the fact sheet notes. Additionally, the paper finds that ACE would make it more difficult for states that have GHG programs to meet them. Six states with GHG targets -- California, Florida,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and New York, as well as the District of Columbia -- would experience at least a small increase in GHGs under ACE compared to no regulation. Florida has a 2007 climate action plan while the others have GHG reduction mandates.
The findings add to legal questions surrounding the rule, which EPA is expected to finalize in coming months as a replacement to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), though the timeline could be affected by the ongoing federal shutdown that has shuttered
most of the agency.”
[InsideEPA, 1/16/19]
https://goo.gl/V3LSbs
Groups Call National Park Shutdown Staffing Dangerous, Illegal: “Visitors at national parks
across the country are witnessing mountains of trash, overflowing toilets and damaged property as several sites remain open during the government shutdown. Two groups are calling for an investigation of the U.S. Department of the Interior by the Office of
the Inspector General, into what they say is a reckless decision by the department to keep many parks open without enough staff to ensure visitors and natural resources are protected. In previous shutdowns in 2013 and 1995, all parks were closed to the public.
Kristen Brengel, vice president for government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, says the last thing the department should be doing is inviting more people into potentially dangerous situations. "They're essentially manufacturing a crisis
here by allowing parks to remain open," she points out. "If parks were closed and just had essential staff, then those staff who were there would just be monitoring the parks to make sure that they were safe." To address some of the problems, the National
Park Service issued a statement that it would divert funds from camping and other fees to "ensure that parks are protected, and that visitors can continue to access parks with limited basic services." Brengel says the agency is breaking the law by doing so.
Democracy Forward, a nonprofit watchdog organization based in Washington, maintains the department is violating at least four separate provisions of federal law. The group's press secretary Charisma Troiano lists the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in addition to the diversion of funds from entrance and parking fees. "On its face, this action violates the Antideficiency Act, but it also violates the Endangered Species Act," Troiano states. "The Department of Interior
is required to ensure that its actions and its inactions don't jeopardize the existence of endangered species or threatened species or their habitats." A Park Service spokesman says the agency consulted with Interior's Office of the Solicitor and determined
that it could use funds from other fees.”
[WXPR, 1/16/19]
https://goo.gl/Yv8GCs
Peckman: Natural gas is not a good fuel: “Charles Bowman has several things wrong in his
commentary, “Paris Accord Drives Pipelines” in the Jan. 3 Roanoke Times. The most glaring declares that natural gas falls in the camp of good fuels along with wind and solar. Natural gas is a fossil fuel hydrocarbon. Because it has a higher ratio of hydrogen
to carbon, burning it produces a little less CO2 than the other fossil fuels. Being not as bad does not make it good. But natural gas, or methane, is actually just as bad as the others because when you mine it and process it and ship it, some of it leaks.
Natural gas is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. When you take the unavoidable leakage of methane into account, natural gas is on a par with all the other fossil fuels. So the Mountain Valley Pipeline is not driven by the Paris Accord. MVP and
the Atlantic Coast Pipeline are driven only by money. But that does not make them good for the economy. The money all goes to a chosen few at great cost to the rest of us. The pipelines are guaranteed a 14 percent profit on their investment. (I wish I could
be guaranteed a 14 percent profit on anything!) And there is great profit to be made in shipping this natural gas around the world. South Korea alone is ordering 140 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ships. Please remember that one of the fundamental requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process Environmental Impact Statement was the public need for the pipeline. Proof of public need is required before private lands can be condemned. It is also a requirement of the Virginia State Constitution
that private lands can be condemned only for public good. NEPA also requires that the public good must outweigh the public harm, which could not be demonstrated because the public need wasn’t even demonstrated! The Environmental Impact Statement also required
details on how the pipeline could be constructed on unprecedented steep slopes without unacceptable erosion. That explanation was not given because it cannot be done. Also lacking is an explanation of how to build a pipeline through Swiss-cheese karst terrain
without poisoning community water supplies. How could FERC accept these gross defects and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement? Was this process also driven by money?”
[The Roanoke Times, 1/16/19]
https://goo.gl/5oUbFv
Florida group suing Army Corps over Big Pass dredge: “A concerned citizens group fighting
to stop a controversial dredging project to renourish seriously eroded Lido Beach is suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for allegedly violating the law by failing to conduct a vital study to examine the project’s potentially detrimental effects to Siesta
Key. Save Our Siesta Sands 2 on Friday filed a suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in an attempt to block the contentious project after the federal agency ignored a request 60 days ago from the group to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement to
address economic and environmental concerns about the plan to dredge Big Pass to rebuild Lido Beach. The notice initiated a two-month period in which the Corps could have remedied the issue raised by the group or face litigation if it refused. Before signing
off on the project, the federal agency conducted a Final Environmental Assessment, which is not as comprehensive as an Environmental Impact Statement, according to the group’s St. Augustine-based land-use and environmental attorney, Jane West. The group cited
concerns about the impact of taking sand from nearby sources, or “borrow areas,” that it says are needed to protect Siesta Key. “The potential damage to Siesta Key, its resident and its businesses, as well as all the homes that could be impacted is substantial,”
Save Our Siesta Sands 2 Chairman Peter van Roekens said Tuesday. “We believe that there are alternative sources (of sand) that can be used and we’re concerned that this may be a major problem for Siesta.” The suit claims the project violates the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, which in turn affects numerous areas of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is notably silent on how the project may exacerbate red tide conditions and the local economy, the 31-page complaint
states. “The Corps failed to prepare an EIS analyzing the significant adverse impacts of the authorized activities. Instead, it relied on an outdated Environmental Assessment and Biological Opinion,” the lawsuit states. “These analyses failed to consider critical
recent information, including the increasingly precarious state of marine life in the region, and the current prolonged state of red tide and the effects it’s having on the marine and human environments in the area.” The Corps of Engineers declined to comment.”
[Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 1/16/19]
https://goo.gl/3D6okP
Justin McCarthy
Communications Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
1101 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 USA
T: (202) 650-0327
C: (540) 312-3797
E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org
The Partnership Project, a registered 501 (c) (3) non-profit, is a collaborative effort of over 20 of the country’s most influential advocacy organizations, including Sierra Club, Defenders
of Wildlife, League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, and Natural Resources Defense Council.