NEPA transformed federal land management — and has fallen short: “Congress introduced, amended
and passed NEPA quickly and only 15 legislators voted against it, indicating a widespread consensus on the need for federal environmental regulation. The law is relatively straightforward: Besides creating the Council on Environmental Quality to advise the
president and issue guidance and regulations, it provided general principles to direct federal activities and devised a process to implement them. At the heart of the legislation lay an optimistic belief that economic growth, environmental protection and human
welfare might align without sacrifice or rancor. The law highlights the need to “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations
of Americans.” It clearly takes a long-range view, incorporating tomorrow’s environmental fate into today’s decisions…But the EIS process with its public input also opened doors to lawsuits, a result as American — and as controversial — as the public lands
themselves. Congress had added the EIS procedure to protect the “productive harmony” at the law’s core. But the strategy failed. The year after Nixon signed NEPA, the D.C. Circuit Court declared its goals flexible, but not its procedures: Federal agencies
could interpret “productive harmony” however they liked, as long as they filed an EIS. In 1989, in what has become a controlling opinion in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, the U.S. Supreme Court went further, declaring that federal agencies did
not even have to preserve “productive harmony.” Instead, it found that “NEPA merely prohibits uninformed — rather than unwise — agency action.” In other words, the EIS needed to list all the options, but agencies were not required to choose the best one.”
[High Country News, 12/6/19]
http://bit.ly/2rlciee
As BLM pulls back Utah leases to do climate reviews, a question emerges: Is Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ strategy backfiring?:
“Among President Donald Trump’s signature initiatives was pursuing “American energy dominance” through a series of regulatory rollbacks to fast-track fossil fuel development, regardless of the potential impacts on the global climate. But that strategy may
actually be slowing development on Utah’s and other Western states’ public lands because the Bureau of Land Management has been forced to reanalyze many of the oil and gas leases it sold in recent years. For the fourth time in the past year, the BLM’s Utah
office last month pulled back dozens of leases covering thousands of acres after acknowledging that its environmental analysis was inadequate in light of a successful court challenge to leases in another state, according to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
The latest suspensions stemmed from a lawsuit SUWA brought with Living Rivers and the Center for Biological Diversity, challenging the sales of 130 leases covering 175,357 acres across Utah, including Emery County’s San Rafael Swell and Molen Reef, lands along
the Green and White rivers, the Book Cliffs and in a part of San Juan County, where ancient American Indians left a rich record of their occupation. “This map is only going to get bigger. This is a mess of BLM’s own making. This is the outcome of the blind
rush for energy dominance,” SUWA staff attorney Landon Newell said. “It has completely backfired. They offered all these leases with as little analysis as possible, and here is the outcome.” Some of these leases date back to November 2014, when the BLM was
overseen by Sally Jewell, President Barack Obama’s Interior secretary, although the majority were offered after Ryan Zinke, under Trump, succeeded Jewell. None has been developed, according to Newell. All told, Newell estimated that the BLM has pulled 240
Utah leases spanning 300,000 acres.”
[Salt Lake Tribune, 12/9/19]
http://bit.ly/36e55Lu
House Democrats take up critical minerals: “House Democrats this week will put their own
spin on how to reverse the United States' heavy reliance on foreign mineral imports. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on research and innovation solving the "critical minerals challenge." They are split on solutions,
but many Republicans and Democrats share national security concerns about growing reliance on foreign countries, in particular China, for a slew of minerals used in military and renewable energy technology. The Trump administration has compiled a list of 35
critical minerals, 14 of which are 100% foreign-sourced. Rare earth elements have become the poster child amid President Trump's trade war with China, which controls all American supplies of the 17 minerals used in missile systems and cellphones. The White
House responded with a new federal strategy to boost domestic critical mineral production through regulatory reforms and permitting deadlines. That mirrored long-standing bills from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska),
S. 1317, and Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), H.R. 2531. While both aim to address long permitting timelines for mines, Murkowski's bill is meant to attract at least some Democrats, while the Amodei bill goes much further in changing the National Environmental Policy
Act process. Deriding GOP bills as end-runs around environmental laws, Democrats have proposed upping federal research into improving mineral recovery and recycling. H.R. 4481, from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), would make the Department of Energy's Critical
Materials Institute permanent and set aside $165.8 million for it over five years. But Murkowski does not expect any of the bills to pass this year (E&E Daily, Nov. 14). A key reason is that neither parties' base sees critical minerals as such a dire threat.”
[E&E News, 12/9/19]
http://bit.ly/2Pwrk8X
Trump admin to test mare birth control vaccine: “Federal land managers are proposing testing
a single-dose birth control vaccine that could render mares sterile for years as wild horse and burro herd sizes continue to grow. The research study proposed to be conducted by the Bureau of Land Management and the Agriculture Department would test the one-dose
oocyte growth factor vaccine on a "small number of wild horses already removed" from overcrowded federal rangelands, according to a preliminary environmental assessment (EA) that BLM released this week. "Such a one-dose fertility control vaccine would be critically
useful in reducing wild horse growth rates in BLM-administered herd management areas [HMAs] across the West," according to the preliminary EA, which is open for public comment through Dec. 19. But the preliminary EA notes that even if successful, the one-dose
vaccine wouldn't solve the existing problem of excess wild horses and burros. BLM estimates there are more than 88,000 wild horses and burros trampling federal HMAs — more than three times the number of animals the rangelands can sustain without damaging vegetation,
soils and other resources. BLM may still need to conduct wild horse gathers "to remove excess horses in order to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance," according to the draft document. But it adds, "The benefit of contraception in wild horse management
results because successful contraception would be expected to reduce the frequency of horse gather activities, as well as wild horse management costs to taxpayers" incurred by feeding and caring for tens of thousands of animals removed from federal rangelands
in long-term holding pens and corrals.”
[E&E News, 12/9/19]
http://bit.ly/38m87iR
Air Force seeks more airspace around Holloman for F-16 fighter training: “The U.S. Air Force
is seeking more airspace for training F-16 fighter pilots at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo. The Air Force is proposing three options for expanding its existing military operations area over Eddy, Otero and Chaves counties to increase space for training
pilots at required altitudes within 120 nautical miles of Holloman. One alternative would expand the existing training area south toward Carlsbad Caverns National Park and east toward the Lea County line. The other two alternatives would establish new operation
areas over 7 million acres west of White Sands Missile Range, over the Rio Grande Valley and Gila Wilderness and population centers in several counties. Each option would also return older Air Force operational areas, no longer in use, to the National Airspace
System. Meanwhile, the active operating areas — depending on which plan is selected — could see up to 10,000 sorties flown annually. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Air Force is required to complete an environmental impact statement in a process
that includes public comment. A series of public meetings in affected communities concluded with a meeting at the Ramada Palms Hotel in Las Cruces Thursday evening, attended by approximately 100 people. The hearing was conducted by a military judge who is
not assigned to Holloman and is not involved in the proposed action. There was no opportunity for questions and answers with project team leaders, but some information was provided on visual displays and in a video presentation that opened the session. Among
the 17 people who delivered comments, none supported the more expansive alternatives 2 or 3, one endorsed the first option (representing the smallest footprint over less populated areas), and most were in favor of a fourth option under the NEPA process: taking
no action at all, which would leave the status quo in place.”
[Las Cruces Sun News, 12/8/19]
http://bit.ly/2PmjCxS
5G Coming to Your Neighborhood?: “The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically
different from previous versions. The 5G technology will enable more data to be carried more quickly, but in many places relies on low waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result, its signal does not travel as far requiring the construction of thousands
of new cells to repeat the wireless signals to make 5G work. As companies like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint construct these new small cell wireless facilities in communities across the country, citizens are organizing to ensure this infrastructure is built in
a way that protects their health and quality of life. As communities face a flood of applications for this new wireless infrastructure, many want to know what laws and regulations govern 5G. Here’s some information that may help…The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires an analysis of environmental impacts of major federal actions. Such actions include various types of federal approvals including for pipelines, oil and gas wells, dams and wireless infrastructure. If the impacts may be significant,
the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. If an agency is unsure whether the impacts may be significant, it can prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the agency will either move forward to prepare
an EIS or instead prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The only way to avoid an EA or an EIS is if the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. While some new cell construction may qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE), the FCC has identified
circumstances where a CE does not apply. For more information on the difference between an EIS and an EA, as well as information on the use and limits of categorical exclusions, see The Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act prepared by the
White House Council on Environmental Quality.”
[NRDC, 12/6/19]
https://on.nrdc.org/344NGnl
Opponents of CMP transmission line press for full environmental review: “Opponents of Central
Maine Power’s proposed $1 billion transmission project that would bring Canadian hydropower to the New England power grid urged the Army Corps of Engineers on Thursday to perform a full environmental impact statement, one that CMP says would delay a final
decision by a year. Critics packed a public hearing on the 145-mile power transmission project, which would serve as a conduit for 1,200 megawatts of electricity from Hydro Quebec. They questioned the environmental benefits, decried the cutting of trees and
argued that the project would hurt homegrown renewable projects. “It’s bad for Maine’s North Woods. It’s bad for Maine’s renewable energy. And it’s not going to help us at all with our climate crisis,” said Sue Ely, attorney for The Natural Resources Council
of Maine, which is opposed to the project. The environmental organization contends CMP’s New England Clean Energy Connect deserves the same level of scrutiny that similar projects received in New Hampshire and Vermont, where the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
conducted full environmental impact statements. “There is no reason that Maine shouldn’t get the full look that New Hampshire’s and Vermont’s projects did,” she said. Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden called on the Army Corps to hold a hearing on the project,
which has met with stubborn resistance in many communities along the proposed path. Golden encouraged CMP to ensure that Mainers are hired for the project, if it’s approved. “In order to maximize the benefit to Maine communities, CMP should guarantee that
these jobs go to Mainers,” he wrote in a letter. A CMP spokeswoman said, “the NECEC project will absolutely show preference for Maine workers.” The project was conceived to help Massachusetts meet its clean-energy goals, and Massachusetts ratepayers would
bear the full cost. Most of the transmission line would follow established utility corridors, but a new swath would be cut through 53 miles (85 kilometers) of wilderness on land that CMP owns in western Maine.”
[AP, 12/5/19]
http://bit.ly/2YvhurW
As feds move to drop Wyoming bear baiting lawsuit, environmental groups say they’ll continue to pursue it:
“Sy Gilliland isn’t even entertaining the idea of how his business would be affected if a lawsuit that aims to end bear baiting in Wyoming is successful. “The state of Wyoming is going to be shoulder-to-shoulder with the outfitting industry,” said Gilliland,
president of the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association and owner of SNS Outfitter & Guides. “(The lawsuit) is frivolous. It’s not based upon sound science.” The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June
by environmental groups Wilderness Watch, Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians. The groups claim that using food to bait black bears for hunting poses a threat to grizzly bears in Wyoming and Idaho, where grizzlies are protected under the Endangered
Species Act. Last month, federal officials filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing previous agreements allowing the states to regulate bear baiting through their own wildlife management agencies, even if the practice occurs on national forest land. The
plaintiffs say that’s not a solid argument. “The states get to regulate hunting; however, if you want to create a food dump on federal land, you need a permit,” Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, said Monday. “It’s not really a
matter of legal debate.” By early December, the lawsuit remained in U.S. District Court in Idaho. At the crux of the lawsuit are questions over whether grizzly bears in Wyoming and Idaho still need to be protected. The bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
were deemed “threatened” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975, and federal agencies have been in and out of court over the last decade as grizzlies have been repeatedly removed and relisted as a threatened species. Most recently, protections were
removed in 2017 and reinstated in 2018.”
[Cowboy State Daily, 12/9/19]
http://bit.ly/2Rxf5vg
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
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.