Court orders Interior to weigh climate impacts of Montana Mine: “Federal regulators need
to take a closer look at the climate impacts of expanding a Powder River Basin coal mine, a judge determined this week. Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement fell short of its environmental review duties when it reissued an approval
to extract additional coal from the Spring Creek mine in Montana, wrote Timothy Cavan, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. OSMRE approved the mine plan in 2016 after a prior round of litigation. Cavan agreed with plaintiffs
that the agency had not taken a hard look at coal transportation impacts, non-climate-combustion effects and the social cost of emitting greenhouse gases. He also found merit in their argument that, instead of an environmental analysis (EA), OSMRE should have
conducted a more robust environmental impact statement (EIS) in preparation for growing the footprint of Cloud Peak Energy Inc.'s mine. Motions to halt activity at the site are still pending. The judge stopped short of tossing the Spring Creek EA, giving the
agency time to examine his findings. "During this time period, Federal Defendants should be directed to correct the [National Environmental Policy Act] violations outlined above and prepare an updated EA," Cavan wrote in his findings and recommendations. "If
Federal Defendants determine an EIS should be completed, they may seek leave to extend the deadline," he wrote. The magistrate's recommendations are subject to approval by a Senate-confirmed judge. Challengers in the lawsuit celebrated Cavan's finding as a
win against efforts by the Trump administration to narrow NEPA reviews and downplay climate concerns.”
[E&E News, 2/13/19]
https://goo.gl/CTJVqK
The Key Questions the Senate Should Ask Trump's Nominee to Head the Department of the Interior:
“David Bernhardt, President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next secretary of the interior, is a bureaucrat with a big reputation. At the current acting secretary of the powerful United States Department of the Interior, Bernhardt has earned notoriety over
the last two years for his administrative savvy and his influence in shaping his agency's relentless attacks on environmental protections. He's been a public voice behind the department's efforts to weaken bedrock laws like the Endangered Species Act, and
wrote a memo about limiting the length of studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act…1) Bernhardt's communications practices are slippery. Though he has spent the last year and a half operating a massive federal agency, journalists, watchdog
groups, and other interested parties have struggled to understand his daily activities and his policy priorities because he seems to put little down in writing. In December, he and his colleagues moved to restrict the Freedom of Information Act's reach at
the DOI, threatening to further limit public insight into his activities;…5) The department has sought to limit the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act; weaken Endangered Species Act protections; rollback protections at prized national monuments;
cancel Obama-era restrictions on oil and gas pollution; open the Atlantic Ocean to offshore oil and gas exploration; sideline crucial scientific research like a federally funded study into the human health impacts of mountaintop removal mining; and clamp down
on the Freedom of Information Act, among other activities. It has done all this while key political appointees have taken scores of meetings with oil and gas groups, mining interests, and other corporate concerns.”
[Pacific Standard, 2/13/19]
https://goo.gl/z4YNNL
California loses border wall challenge at appeals court: “A federal appeals court ruled
that the Trump administration did not exceed its powers by waiving environmental rules to speed up construction of prototypes and replacement of the U.S.-Mexico border wall. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected arguments by the state of
California and environmental groups who tried to block work that has mostly been completed near San Diego and Calexico. The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court decision that found the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows
the Department of Homeland Security to avoid lengthy environmental reviews to speed construction of border barriers. The one dissenting judge said the case should have been thrown out because such appeals belong before the Supreme Court. The ruling came as
Congress worked out a government funding deal that includes some but not all of the money President Donald Trump wants for his cherished border wall expansion. A dispute over that funding, which does not include the sections of wall challenged in court, led
to an unprecedented 35-day government shutdown that ended last month. The appeals court case argued in Pasadena in August revolved around whether the Homeland Security secretary had authority to waive dozens of laws including the National Environmental Policy
Act and Endangered Species Act. Reviews required by those laws can often delay or derail projects. The administration has issued several waivers to build sections of border wall in California, New Mexico and Texas. Lawsuits opposed to some of those projects
are pending, but legal challenges to such barriers have failed over the years amid national security concerns. At issue in court were waivers the secretary issued in 2017 to cover fencing in two California cities. The waivers were for eight prototypes built
in San Diego and 2 miles (3 kilometers) of replacement fencing completed in downtown Calexico. Construction is almost complete on one 14-mile (23-kilometer) section of barrier in San Diego and work is about to start on another of the same length.”
[AP, 2/13/19]
https://goo.gl/KTXtcJ
Butterfly Center Files For Restraining Order Against Trump’s ‘Unconstitutional’ Border Wall:
“The National Butterfly Center in Texas has filed for a restraining order to stop the construction of a border barrier across its land. The court action argues that the federal government’s property grab violates the Constitution and will cause “irreparable
harm” to the environment. The move could be the beginning of Texas clashes with the federal government over property confiscations as the Trump administration begins building border walls in the Rio Grande Valley. Some private property owners have already
denied federal requests to allow access to begin surveying their land for construction sites, The Washington Post reported. Federal contractors appeared at the site unannounced in the summer of 2017 — long before funds were approved for any construction —
and began ripping out trees and brush in the 100-acre butterfly refuge in Mission, refuge Executive Director Marianna Trevino-Wright told HuffPost. Construction was expected to begin sometime this month. The center attracts about 35,000 visitors annually
for a chance to view about 200 species of butterflies as well as a wide range of birds in the area. As building preparation is undertaken, “Defendants’ constitutional violations are escalating,” the center’s lawyers wrote in court papers filed Monday in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “Immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm.” The motion accuses the government of unreasonable search and seizure in taking control of the land, and seizure of property without due
process of law. “By summarily depriving [the center] of its property without due process of law, Defendants defy centuries of democratic values that shield Americans from government action depriving individuals of their rightful property without notice and
an opportunity to be heard,” the lawyers argued. Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Nielsen is named as defendant. The butterfly center is also asking for a preliminary injunction until the government has properly assessed the environmental impact of the
barrier as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.”
[HuffPost, 2/12/19]
https://goo.gl/ufcnqt
Apache Stronghold leads fifth anniversary march:
“Last Friday, Feb. 8 members of Apache Stronghold held their fifth — and possibly final — anniversary march to save Oak Flat, proposed site of a deep mining project by Resolution
Copper that is expected to permanently alter the landscape in the mountains east of Superior. The march consisted of a combination of walking by a group of about 50 people and a relay run of members of the Apache Tribe, including event organizer and former
Tribal Chairman Wendsler Nosie. The morning began with a gathering for prayer and singing before the 40-plus-mile trek, but the group almost had to move the start of the march, after the board of San Carlos Apache College initially refused to let Apache Stronghold
use the space in front of the college. Etpison was on hand to speak to the gathering, reiterating that this could be the final protest, as Resolution and the U.S. Forest Service might execute a land swap for the property within the next year. “This is the
last year we can fight for whatever we can, so this is the year that we will have to give it our all,” Etpison said. “Determination has to heighten; determination has to get stronger. ... After this year, they’re going to turn it over to Resolution Copper
as private land.”…
Resolution Copper is a partnership between Rio Tinto, a multi-national mining corporation headquartered in London, the third largest in the world, and BHP, an Australian corporation that is the second largest. BHP also owns property around the city of Globe,
including Old Dominion Mine Park and several parcels in the surrounding area. Oak Flat sits over the second largest remaining copper deposit left on the planet. The mine would sink more than 7,000 feet into the ground, where temperatures reach 180 degrees
Fahrenheit, and large quantities of water for cooling and other aspects of mining from dust control to remediation of mine waste, would be required for its operation. In the end, it would leave a crater more than one mile wide and 1,100 feet deep, coming within
1,000 feet of Apache Leap, just east of the town of Superior. The project would ultimately employ somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,400 people and inject $20 billion into Arizona’s economy. It could supply the United States with one-quarter of its copper
for the next 40-60 years.”
[Silver Belt, 2/13/19]
https://goo.gl/kPv3x3
Maps Reveal Possible Locations for a New Bay Bridge: “A set of map drafts from the ongoing
Chesapeake Bay Crossing Study has gone public, revealing 14 different possible locations for a future crossing in Maryland. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study aims to find "a preferred corridor alternative to address congestion at the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge and evaluation of its financial feasability." The study will evaluate the current future traffic demand across the Chesapeake Bay. It's being conducted by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA), which owns, operates and maintains the Bay Bridge.
According to recently-surfaced map drafts from MDTA and the Federal Highway Administration, the farthest-north possible bridge could cross from Harford to Cecil County, and the farthest-south could cross from St. Mary’s to Somerset County. Between the two,
there are 12 other possible locations shown— including a span that would cross right next to the existing Bay Bridge. The draft maps show the possible crossing locations compared to different geographical factors: one map shows the locations by county, another
highlights areas of prime farmland and wildlife refuges, still another marks wetlands and 100-year floodplains. In a statement to Bay Bulletin, MDTA spokesman John Sales stresses that the maps being circulated are far from final proposals: “The pre-decisional
maps that are part of the Bay Bridge Tier 1 NEPA process are just that, pre-decisional. The MDTA is working toward formal presentations of the proposed alternatives and that is scheduled to happen this spring.” The study— and any possible locations— has set
off a “Not in my Backyard” reaction from some groups both on the western and Eastern Shores. The organization Keep Calvert Country is pushing for county commissioners to take a hard stand against a bridge crossing in Calvert. There are four possible Calvert
County locations on the pre-decisional maps. The Kent Conservation and Preservation Alliance opposes any new Bay crossing, especially one that ends in Kent County. The group calls it a “20th century solution to a 21st century problem.” “Instead, take the money
that would be spent on this infrastructure project, upwards of $6-7 Billion, and use it to improve the communities and infrastructure of the State, making them more livable and sustainable thereby reducing the desire to commute long distances, including across
the Chesapeake Bay.” In 1952, 1.1 million vehicles traveled over the Bay Bridge. In 2014, that number was 25.5 million vehicles. And MDTA maintains that traffic volume over the Chesapeake Bay is only going to get heavier in the future.”
[Chesapeake Bay Magazine, 2/13/19]
https://goo.gl/UD9hvo
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.