Court backs FERC's Mountain Valley approval: “A trio of appellate court judges yesterday
struck down a broad challenge to the federal government's approval of the Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a long list of arguments against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
authorization of the 300-mile Appalachian natural gas transport project. The consolidated case featured many disputes from several environmental groups, including a critique of FERC's analysis of climate impacts from the pipeline. "Petitioners raise sixteen
different challenges to FERC's environmental assessment of the Project and subsequent issuance of the certificate authorizing Mountain Valley to construct and operate the pipeline subject to several conditions described in the Certificate Order," the judges
wrote. "None of the challenges succeeds." Legal experts were eager to parse the climate implications of the order, which comes as FERC is preparing to defend a controversial change to its handling of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emission analysis.
During oral arguments last month, Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, questioned why environmental challengers had not used their initial briefs to address FERC's rejection of the social cost of carbon tool to assess the pipeline's climate impact. The
judges yesterday leaned on that omission in their conclusion that FERC's consideration of downstream emissions from the Mountain Valley project was adequate. "FERC provided an estimate of the upper bound of emissions resulting from end-use combustion, and
it gave several reasons why it believed petitioners' preferred metric, the Social Cost of Carbon tool, is not an appropriate measure of project-level climate change impacts and their significance under [the National Environmental Policy Act] or the Natural
Gas Act," the judges found. "That is all that is required for NEPA purposes." This won't be the D.C. Circuit's last word on FERC's climate approach, court watchers said yesterday. A challenge of the PennEast pipeline through Pennsylvania and New Jersey will
open another door for consideration of the social cost of carbon, said Avi Zevin, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. Because the court's finding yesterday came in the form of an unpublished order,
the ruling does not set precedent for future challenges…"We consider the appeal of the Dominion New Market Project to be the most significant before the court, given FERC's split decision on rehearing in that case which found that upstream and downstream GHG
emissions are generally not reasonable and foreseeable, and therefore do not need to be evaluated as direct or indirect impacts of a particular natural gas infrastructure project," ClearView wrote.”
[E&E News, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/7dvPN4
A Tunnel for a Wall? Lawsuit Suggests Trump Using Hudson River Train Tube as Bargaining Chip:
“From the perch of an Acela train engineer's chair, Amtrak spokesman Craig Schulz points out the crumbling concrete plaguing the Hudson River train tunnel. It's hard to see the damage as the locomotive whizzes by, but still photography shows the deterioration.
"That’s why we call this the most urgent project in the country," Schulz said, referring to a $13 billion plan to build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River. "This is an area where 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product is created." Because
it is impossible to know how long the 108-year-old tunnel walls can last before a catastrophic failure, New York and New Jersey lawmakers have joined Amtrak, imploring the Trump administration to greenlight the new tunnel. But for months, the project has been
stalled. Now the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group in favor of the tunnel project, is suing the U.S. Department of Transportation, seeking reasons for the delay. NRDC officials say they were stonewalled last year after filing
a records request for emails in which the tunnel project is discussed. The lawsuit demands the USDOT comply with the Freedom of Information Act and produce those emails. The suit also cites insider information suggesting Trump administration officials may
have used the codename "mushroom" to refer to the project, possibly to "stymie Freedom of Information requests." Scott Slesinger, the NRDC’s senior advisor for federal affairs, says he believes Trump is actively throttling the project so he can use the tunnel
as a political bargaining chip. "There are some reports that because it’s so important to the senators of New York and New Jersey, particularly the leader of the Democrats, Sen. Schumer, that the [resident wants to trade it for a wall," said Slesinger. In
response to questions from the I-Team, Dave Longo, a spokesman for the USDOT sent an email insisting the Federal Transportation Administration, a USDOT sub-agency, "is unaware of the term 'mushroom' to refer to this or any other transit project." The statement
made no mention of whether USDOT personnel in other sub-agencies may or may not have used the alleged code name.”
[NBC New York, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/2oM5Ex
Bill seeks to close an environmental gap, without quashing business: “The methane hotspot
in the northwest. The town of Mesquite, where residents worry about air quality while living adjacent to Helena Chemical, in the south. Albuquerque’s South Valley and its air quality concerns. Proponents of the Environmental Review Act, HB 206, have a list
of places where people and the environment could be better protected if the state had the environmental assessment tools it lays out. The bill bogged down in four hours of questions and public comment during its first committee hearing before the House Energy,
Environment and Natural Resources Committee on a Saturday in January. It emerged without a recommendation. Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Galisteo, who chairs that committee, said, “I support the concept, but we have to be cautious and make sure we get it right.”
Representatives from mining companies, oil and gas companies, and economic development organizations flooded the committee room with concerns. Chief among them are that these rules would add another round of paperwork that will slow down business. Some think
the uncertainty and delays would deter companies from starting in or moving to New Mexico, stalling out efforts to diversify the economy from its dependence on oil and gas. The bill aims to fill in gaps in federal laws that require environmental reviews without
doubling up on those laws, demand more public notice, and study cumulative impacts to an area. It offers tiered approaches: a nine-question environmental assessment to offer faster, easier examination of a project, and an environmental impact statement for
projects likely to have more significant impacts on surrounding land, air, water, minerals, flora, and fauna, affect noise levels or objects of historic or cultural significance. Much of its implementation would be left to state agencies. It also requires
consulting tribes on projects within 15 miles of tribal land to steer from cultural resources and sensitive areas. Only projects that cost more than $2 million would qualify, though spurring “public controversy” could prompt a state agency to ask for an assessment.
It wouldn’t apply to anything that already exists, but if a permit changes, it could be open to review.”
[New Mexico In Depth, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/PmCquM
Lawsuits Claim Trump's Declaration Of National Emergency Is Unconstitutional: “The Sierra
Club and a coalition of border community organizations sued President Donald Trump in federal court in San Francisco Tuesday to challenge his declaration of a national emergency to divert federal funding to border wall construction. The lawsuit by the Oakland-based
Sierra Club and more than 60 organizations along the southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas borders was filed by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers. A similar lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco Monday by California and 15
other states. The lawsuits name several other administration officials as well as Trump as defendants. Both cases claim Trump's declaration Friday is unconstitutional because it intrudes on Congress's exclusive authority to appropriate money. The two lawsuits
also contend Trump's action violates the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires a study and an opportunity for public comment on actions affecting the environment. The Sierra Club lawsuit claims, "Construction of President Trump's wall will have
devastating effects on the environment," allegedly potentially harming 100 endangered, threatened or rare plant and animal species. Both lawsuits allege that a lack of an emergency is shown by a comment Friday in which Trump said, "I didn't need to do this,
but I'd rather do this much faster." Trump declared the national emergency on Friday, the same day he signed a congressional budget bill allocating $1.375 billion for border barriers. He said he plans to draw another $6.7 billion for wall construction from
military construction and military counter-drug funds and Treasury Department forfeitures. Two other lawsuits filed by environmental groups and three Texas landowners are pending in federal court in San Francisco.”
[San Francisco Chronicle, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/AaRw32
Judge deals blow to Obama hopes of building his library on historic park land: “A federal
judge on Tuesday dealt a blow to President Barack Obama's presidential center in Chicago by allowing a lawsuit against the project to continue. Protect Our Parks, Inc., along with conservation and historical groups, sued last May to stop the center from being
built on historic, lakefront parkland in Chicago. The Obama Foundation is trying to build a $500 million presidential center on that land, and opponents are trying to keep the project out of Jackson Park, which is nearly as old as Central Park in New York
City. “We are not opposing construction of the Obama Presidential Center, as long as it’s not in historic Jackson Park,” said Herbert Caplan, Protect Our Parks founder. That group and other opponents are trying to stop the Obama Foundation from building a
230-feet-tall center in the park. And on Tuesday, Judge John Robert Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected a motion by the city of Chicago to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing it to continue. The Obama Presidential Center
is being proposed on federal land that was deemed by the government in 2012 to be inappropriate for construction. The groups said the foundation could have purchased private land or gone about getting public land differently, but chose to lock down 20 acres
of Jackson Park on Chicago's south side. "The Obama Foundation and the University of Chicago created this controversy by insisting on the confiscation of public parkland,” Charles A. Birnbaum, president and CEO of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, said in
a statement. “The Obama Foundation could make this issue go away by using vacant and/or city-owned land on the South Side for the Obama Presidential Center (which is planned to be a private facility rather than a presidential library administered by the National
Archives), or, better still, land owned by the University of Chicago, which submitted the winning bid to host the Center." The judge's ruling means the hearing determining the parameters for discovery in the case will take place Feb. 27. Because discovery
may take months, the judge's decision will delay construction on the center even if it is later approved. Groundbreaking on the project was already pushed back last July following a second delay in the federal review process of the request for the public land…While
the legal case continues, the foundation is waiting on federal review by the Environmental Protection Agency, a requirement outlined under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The first verification
process will determine if the Obama Presidential Center would have "adverse effects" on Jackson Park. The State Historic Preservation Office will ask "official consulting parties" to provide opinions on whether it would have adverse effects on the land. "This
isn’t just any public open space; this is historic parkland originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux (of New York’s Central Park fame),” one of the consulting parties, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, stated on its website. The
park system was designed in 1871, and Olmsted wrote in 1895 that the Museum of Science and Industry was intended to be the only "dominating object of interest" in the park.”
[Washington Examiner, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/bXeiYT
LaGuardia AirTrain Faces Questions Over Route and Rationale: “There has been talk about
building an “air train” to LaGuardia Airport since before the place was officially known as LaGuardia Airport. Over the years, supporters of an air train have bemoaned the lack of a direct rail link to one of the city’s two, major international airports—especially
after JRK Airport established such a link in 2003—but cost and logistics have proven to be high hurdles. Now Gov. Andrew Cuomo has set out to overcome those obstacles and build a $1.5 billion rail line from the Willets Point Long-Island Railroad station to
the LAG terminals. The proposal is now moving into environmental review, with the Federal Aviation Administration in position to make the final decision about whether and what to build. The state’s hope is for shovels to go into the ground in 2020 and service
to begin in 2022. While the governor and the Port Authority (which controls the regions airports) have argued forcefully that an AirTrain is an absolute necessity, especially with LaGuardia’s passenger traffic expected to rise, the project has many critics.
Transportation advocates believe Cuomo’s AirTrain will have a minimal impact on travel times and believe the plan ignores the potential for an expanded bus system to provide more service to LAG. Environmentalists are worried that the train will set back efforts
to clean up Flushing Bay and further restrict public access to that waterbody. Airport neighbors—who already have a litany of complaints about noise and air quality around LAG—worry about the impact on their quality of life and home values. No one seems to
regard this as a “done deal,” however. The federal environmental review is expected to evaluate a long list of potential alternatives to the AirTrain—like more buses, ferries, extending the N or W train—as well as alternatives the Port’s preferred path for
the AirTrain, which is above and along the Flushing Bay Promenade (one alternate route, disliked by environmentalists, would run the train out over the bay itself). Last week, City Limits moderated a panel discussion about the train sponsored by Riverkeeper,
Guardians of the Bay and the Ditmars Boulevard Block Association featuring Mike Dulong from Riverkeeper, Lynn Kelly from New Yorkers for Parks, Leticia Ochoa from Queens Neighborhoods United, Nick Sifuentes of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and Frank
Taylor from the Ditmars Boulevard Block Association.”
[City Limits, 2/20/2019]
https://goo.gl/PaQJ8J
To help salmon migrate, state looks to spill more over dams: “While federal officials consider
breaching one or more dams in Washington to increase salmon survival, state officials are considering increasing spill over the dams to help more smolts survive in the meantime. If there is too little spill at hydrodams, more young, vulnerable salmon are sent
down more dangerous turbines to get past them. If there is too much spill, they can die from the pressure, with gas bubbles suffocating their gills. It's similar to "the bends," a decompression illness that happens to scuba divers who come to the surface too
fast. At the direction of the governor’s orca task force, Washington is trying to strike a balance by increasing spill thresholds so more smolts can make it through. "How much recovery value it has has always been the subject of debate, but pretty much everybody
has agreed that more will help," said Michael Garrity, Columbia River and Water Policy Manager for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. At a public hearing in Vancouver, Washington, the Department of Ecology heard testimony from people who wanted to
weigh in on a measure to increase spill. "This is one of the few things the state can do to provide more salmon for orcas in just a few years," said Sristi Kamal of Defenders of Wildlife. "The more fish that are spilled, the more fish that return to the river
as adults to spawn." The department is considering an increase on 'total dissolved gas,' or TDG, on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers from April to June. TDG measures spill around dams, relating it to normal river flows…While the governor’s orca task force
mulls over effects of breaching dams on the lower Snake River for salmon survival, they recommended increasing spill over the dams up to 125 percent TDG. The increased spill would apply to eight federal dams, four on the lower Snake River and four on the lower
Columbia. The Department of Ecology, however, is recommending a more minor increase to 120 percent in front of the dams, called the forebay. The water after each dam, the tailrace, is already allowed to reach 120 percent…While dam breaching continues to be
debated in a National Environmental Policy Act process, increased spill is close to a decision. The Department of Ecology is holding an online webinar and hearing Tuesday night for people to weigh in. The public has until February 28, 2019, to submit comment
on the proposal.”
[FOX 13, 2/19/2019]
https://goo.gl/iLcEV5
Opinion: New bridge in Missoula is best choice for taxes, infrastructure: “I attended the
Missoula County commissioners' meeting with the Montana Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration "to seek clarity" regarding the Maclay Bridge replacement project, in Helena, Feb. 13. Commissioner Nicole Rowley is very skilled at listening,
asking clarifying questions and capturing what is said succinctly. As a new commissioner, Josh Slotnick heard about the project and the process. He asked good questions and seems anxious to learn more from the consultants the county hired. Commissioner Dave
Strohmaier said more than once that he didn’t want to "get into the weeds" of the reports and continued to ask if the county has the authority to stop the South Avenue Bridge alternative, ignoring years of studies, and instead rehabilitate Maclay Bridge; if
the federal dollars can be diverted to Maclay; if the county can require more environmental studies; and if the county has to pay back the million dollars if they don’t agree with the professionals. I was the commissioner who nominated the bridge to be replaced
using the Off-System Bridge Program; accepted the pre-Montana Environmental Policy Act/National Environmental Policy Act preliminary alternative for a new South Avenue bridge; signed the agreement to pay back the federal funds if the county stopped the project
without a legitimate reason; with concurrence from both Maclay Bridge Alliance and Maclay Bridge Coalition, hired HDR, a nationally recognized professional firm, to do the MEPA/NEPA analysis under state and federal rules and regulations to be reviewed by state
and federal agencies; directed HDR to study the cost and scope of a rehab of Maclay Bridge in detail to meet the goals of the project related to safety, etc. I have read the many years of data. The answers are in those "weeds" — decades of research, science
and engineering. Elected officials have tough decisions to make and should use the best information available. It may not be the popular decision but will be the right decision for the good of the whole. When all the independent experts, from many disciplines,
come to the same conclusion from different angles, the decision to be made is pretty clear.”
[The Missoulian, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/rtnwQQ
City takes next step in Highway 169/282 interchange saga: “There has been increased talk
of a redesigned interchange replacing traffic lights at the intersection of Highways 169 and 282 and County Road 9 ever since the city began seriously studying the project last April. On Tuesday, the Jordan City Council took the next step in pursuing the interchange
by entering an agreement to produce a more rigorous environmental and design study. The council voted 6-1 to authorize preliminary designs and environmental documentation work for the proposed interchange. Councilman Jeff Will was the sole "no" vote. In order
to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements, the city will work with Kimley-Horn to complete design and environmental documentation for the project. The council previously contracted with Kimley-Horn last spring for a concept design and consensus
building project. A technical advisory committee consisting of city, county and state staff, as well as three city council members, met over eight months to collect public input and determine how adjacent businesses would be affected by the interchange. The
consensus report was completed in December. City Administrator Tom Nikunen said the goal of the study was to establish an agency-supported design concept and estimated costs to allow the city, county and Minnesota Department of Transportation to move forward
with planning and pursue funding. "The great thing about this agreement is that we will answer a lot of the questions that a few people think may have been unanswered as part of the consensus building process previously," Nikunen wrote in a council memo. "We
will focus more on the design work details, potential construction staging, digital aerial views and car and truck routing details.’”
[Jordan Independent, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/U4zvzE
Comments welcome on release of funding for Michigan’s TC pier project: “Tawas City has decided
not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the pier rehabilitation project at Tawas City Shoreline Park. Anyone disagreeing with the decision will be given until Wednesday, Feb. 27, to submit written comments. In a notice prepared by
city manager Annge Horning, it is stated that on or about Feb. 27, the city will request the Michigan Strategic Fund to release federal funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 for the pier project. Horning wrote that Tawas
City plans to repair the existing pier and construct a new boardwalk or similar walking path. “The pier would be used for recreational pedestrian and fishing access. Temporary (day) or transient dockage for recreational boats is also planned,” she stated.
Located at 429 W. Lake St. (US-23), the project cost is reported to be $3,589,949. “By stabilizing and extending the existing pier the community will have safe access to Lake Huron for fishing, viewing and day-docking for boaters traversing this portion of
Lake Huron’s Tawas Bay,” Horning stated. “These efforts will increase and extend the usership of the park impacting the City of Tawas City’s local economy,” she added. As outline in the notice, it has been determined that such request for release of funds
will not constitute an action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, Tawas City has decided not to prepare an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.”
[Iosca County News-Herald, 2/20/19]
https://goo.gl/Kia77n
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.