3 questions about the Keystone spill: “Federal regulators have ordered TC Energy to shut down its Keystone pipeline until an investigation is complete into an oil spill that occurred last week in North Dakota. TC Energy, formerly known as TransCanada Corp., said it has cleaned up about 285,000 gallons of the 383,000 gallons (9,120 barrels) that spilled. The company says the spill hasn't affected any water supplies, and it plans to restore the property of the one landowner who was affected. "We're continuing to monitor air quality around the site and the surrounding area throughout clean-up," the company said in a statement. However, activists noted that this was the fourth leak on the existing Keystone line, which has run from Hardisty, Alberta, to Port Arthur, Texas, since it opened in 2011. There was a 14,000-gallon spill in 2011, a 17,000-gallon spill in 2016 and a 407,000-gallon spill in 2017. The North Dakota event will likely create more pressure from activists to reject TC Energy's other big project, the $8 billion Keystone XL pipeline, which has been debated since 2008. And it raises questions about what the federal government and Congress might do to regulate pipelines. The string of spills could hamper efforts to build Keystone XL, analysts say. Landowners along the Keystone XL route in Nebraska said they plan to use the existing pipeline's history to fight TC Energy's efforts to condemn their land. One of their arguments: TC Energy told U.S. regulators that it expected leaks of 50 barrels or more "no more than once every 7 to 11 years over the entire length of the pipeline in the U.S.," Reuters reported. Anthony Swift, director of the Canada project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement this week that the North Dakota spill is "just the latest problem" casting doubts on whether oil sands crude can be safely moved, "especially when pipelines cross farms and water in the U.S. heartland." Activists also cited the Keystone spill during a South Dakota meeting this week discussing Keystone XL water permits.”

[E&E News, 11/7/19] http://bit.ly/2JYB21H

You’ve seen our crummy train tunnel. We need money for Gateway, senators tell feds: “Now that U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao secretly toured the ancient, crumbling Hudson River train tunnels used by thousands of NJ Transit and Amtrak commuters daily, two U.S. Senators want her to fund and cut red tape to build new tunnels. U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., also invited Chao in a letter sent Wednesday to talk to commuters who are “impacted each week by countless delays to understand the urgency of moving the Gateway Tunnel project ahead by committing federal funding." Last month, Politico reported that Chao took a secret ride through the Hudson River tunnels in April 2018, without telling the region’s four Democratic senators who had invited her in 2017 on a tour with them. The tour was part of a broader Amtrak train ride of the Northeast Corridor, an Amtrak official told Politico. A copy of the Booker-Menendez letter sent to Chao on Nov. 6 was obtained by NJ Advance Media. It renews requests to approve applications for federal grants to fund a portion of the Gateway Tunnel project. It has been mired in political back and forth between New Jersey and New York officials and the Trump administration since 2017. The letter also questions why approvals that would allow tunnel design work to start have been delayed. Booker and Menendez also asked about grant applications to replace the ancient Portal Bridge that carries tracks over the Hackensack River in Kearny. Both the tunnels and bridge are owned by Amtrak and are part of the larger Northeast Corridor rail line between Boston and Washington D.C. Federal officials characterized Gateway as regional rather than national projects.”

[NJ.com, 11/6/19] http://bit.ly/2NOAsVp

Long-Term Solutions for California Wildfire Prevention: “When evaluating what happened in nearly a century since this fire, two stories emerge. The story coming from California’s politicians emphasizes climate change. From former Governor Jerry Brown: “In less than five years, even the worst skeptics will be believers.” From current Governor Gavin Newsom, speaking on the threat of wildfires in the state: “If anyone is wondering if climate change is real, come to California.” The other story, which comes from professional foresters, emphasizes how different forest management practices might have made many of the recent fires far less severe, if not avoided entirely. Specifically, California’s misguided forest management practices included several decades of successful fire suppression, combined with a failure to remove all the undergrowth that results when natural fires aren’t allowed to burn. Back in 1923, forest fire suppression was in its infancy. But techniques and technologies improved apace with firefighting budgets, until by the second half of the 20th century, an army of firefighters coped, overall, very effectively with California’s wildfires. The result is excessive undergrowth which not only creates fuel for catastrophic and unmanageable super fires, but these excessive trees and shrubs compete with mature trees. This is the real reason why California’s forests are not only tinderboxes, but also filled with dying trees. Now Californians confront nearly 20 million acres of overgrown forests. Behind the climate change rhetoric and political posturing, a consensus has quietly formed that California’s forests need to be thinned. In order to rapidly address the challenge of thinning California’s forests, there are several steps that may be taken simultaneously. For starters, many environmental regulations need to be rewritten. The state is already beginning to grant CEQA exemptions to property owners that want to engage in thinning operations. But half of California’s forests are on federal land. At the federal level, the EPA’s “no action” restrictions, usually based on the “single species management” practice, have led to more than half of California’s national forests being off limits to tree thinning, brush removal, or any other sort of active management.”

[California Globe, 11/7/19] http://bit.ly/33sNU85

Interior to Offer Buyouts to Employees Tapped for Relocation, As Some Already Head for the Exits: “When you have to take care of your mother with Alzheimer’s, it is difficult to move across the country for a job. That is why one Bureau of Land Management employee, who has worked in the federal government for more than two decades, is not planning to accept her agency’s mandate that she move to Arizona. In the coming days, BLM will send out “management-directed relocation” notices to most of its Washington, D.C.-based staff, as it moves its headquarters to Colorado and shifts hundreds of other employees from the capital to state offices. “We have children here,” said the employee. “Our roots are here. We can't move because we grew up here. This is our home.” The employee echoed the sentiments from several BLM employees who spoke to Government Executive on the condition of anonymity due to a fear of retaliation by the agency. The employees, all of whom already have plans to leave or are in the process of finding a new job, said they know of few colleagues who plan to accept their mandated relocations. Even some of those who will agree to move will do so only until they can find another job in D.C. and move back. They all lamented plummeting morale, a mistrust of leadership and a growing fear their work is, in reality, being removed rather than simply moved. Employees in the roughly 250 positions BLM is moving out of Washington and into western states are waiting to hear more details about their options. Agency officials have told the workers they have sought authority to offer buyouts and early retirement to those who do not accept their relocation, according to several employees, but are still waiting for final approval from the Office of Personnel Management. Derrick Henry, a BLM spokesman, said the agency received sign off from OPM and the Office of Management and Budget and will notify employees of their eligibility and hold information sessions in the coming weeks. Under current law, agencies can offer buyouts of up to $25,000. The Interior Department previously said it would provide employees who agree to move 25% of their base salaries as an incentive, as well as free temporary housing in their new locations, but has subsequently threatened to withdraw those perks due to a lack of funding.”

[Government Executive, 11/6/19] http://bit.ly/2WOXEXU

Justin McCarthy

Interim Director, NEPA Campaign

The Partnership Project
1300 L St NW

Washington, DC 20005 USA
C: (540) 312-3797

E: jmccarthy@partnershipproject.org

protectnepa.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.