Trump to overhaul environmental review process, dismiss climate impacts: sources:
“The Trump administration will unveil new regulations on Wednesday, which would limit the types of projects like highways and pipelines that require environmental review and no longer
require federal agencies to weigh their climate impacts, sources familiar with the plan said. The proposed overhaul will update how federal agencies implement the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law aimed at ensuring the government protects
the environment when reviewing or making decisions about major projects, from building roads and bridges, cutting forests, expanding broadband to approving interstate pipelines like the Keystone XL. The White House Council on Environmental Quality is expected
to announce that federal agencies will not be required to consider “cumulative” climate change impacts when considering federal projects, said two people familiar with the CEQ rulemaking. The CEQ oversees how nearly 80 government agencies meet their NEPA obligations.
The CEQ is also expected to limit the scope of projects that would trigger stringent environmental reviews called environmental impact studies, expand the number of project categories that can be excluded from NEPA reviews and allow companies or project developers
to conduct their own environmental assessments, the sources said. CEQ declined to comment. Christy Goldfuss, former chair of the CEQ between 2015 and 2017, said the Trump proposal would cause lasting damage. She said environmental groups have successfully
blocked or delayed a dozen big polluting projects in courts by arguing that Trump agencies failed to weigh climate impacts in their reviews, a requirement created under the Obama administration.”
[Reuters, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/2sFFihr
NEPA climate overhaul could unleash energy projects: “The White House is poised to exclude
climate considerations from its controversial rewrite of rules surrounding the nation's core environmental law.
The Council on Environmental Quality's proposed changes to National Environmental Policy Act guidelines will likely emerge this week. NEPA, signed into law by President
Nixon, gives communities input and allows them to challenge federal decisions on projects like pipelines, highways and bridges. And it requires federal regulators to analyze a host of impacts. The Trump plan is expected to "simplify the definition of environmental
'effects' and clarify that effects must be reasonably foreseeable and require a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action," according to a draft White House memo obtained by E&E News. In other words, the government could only study the impacts
tied directly to a project — not how a project would add to a larger problem, something environmentalists have been clamoring for. "No one pipeline causes climate change, so that wouldn't be considered a reasonably close causal relationship," explained Christy
Goldfuss, a senior vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP). "I suspect that's the intent." The New York Times was first to report Friday that the administration planned to downplay climate concerns in its NEPA rule rewrite. It's
no secret President Trump has continually sought to accelerate the development of infrastructure in his quest for energy dominance while trying to jettison the term "climate change" from government dialect. But, if finalized, the proposed changes could clear
the way for projects, like the Keystone XL pipeline, that federal judges have blocked on the basis that greenhouse gas impacts were not fully studied.”
[E&E News, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/36vpRa5
A New Trump Rule Would Fast-Track Oil Pipelines Without Consideration of Climate Change:
“The Trump administration will soon make it easier for projects like oil pipelines and highways to get federal approval regardless of their environmental risks and effects on climate
change, according to the New York Times. The administration is expected to gut the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act by making more projects exempt from the environmental reviews it requires, and by stripping requirements for federal agencies to
consider “cumulative” impacts such as contributions to climate change. By mandating risk evaluation and comment periods, NEPA has become one of the public’s strongest tools for intervening against projects that could taint drinking water, destroy habitats,
or release massive amounts of carbon. Yet 95 percent of federal projects are declared exempt, a fraction that would increase if the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which regulates these reviews, moves forward with proposed revisions expected
to be released Wednesday, according to the Times. Those who complain that the law hinders economic development, such as industry groups and trade unions, have found powerful support in President Trump, who just two days ago commemorated NEPA’s 50th anniversary
by saying it created “significant uncertainty and delays” that “threaten jobs for American workers.” Environmental reviews typically take four to five years; in a 2017 executive order, Trump directed agencies to complete them in two. The Sierra Club, the
Western Environmental Law Center, and 175 other groups signed a letter in August saying that new limitations on NEPA “would have far-reaching effects to the places we advocate for and help to steward.” Matthew Davis of the League of Conservation Voters lamented
“yet another Trump administration attack” that “would shut out the public… for the benefit of corporate polluters.’”
[MotherJones, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/2MWDwPK
White House update of key environmental law would exclude climate change: “The Trump administration
will instruct federal agencies to no longer take climate change into account when measuring the impact of major infrastructure projects, according to two senior administration officials - a sweeping overhaul of one of the nation's most consequential environmental
laws. The proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act are aimed at speeding approvals for pipelines, oil and gas leases, highway construction and other kinds of development. The law, which was last updated in 1978, has proved one
of the most potent stumbling blocks to Trump's push to accelerate oil, gas and coal extraction across the country. Under NEPA, agencies are required to analyze the extent to which proposed federal actions affect everything from endangered species to water
quality to greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change. Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency raised objections during a NEPA review of the massive Keystone XL pipeline that delayed it. More recently, federal judges halted
oil and gas leasing in Wyoming as well as the Trump administration's push to restart coal leasing on public land on the grounds that the Interior Department did not properly assess the climate impacts of these decisions. Two administration officials, who spoke
on the condition of anonymity because the proposed changes will not be announced until next week, said the plan will shorten the timeframe for the environmental reviews. The reviews will also no longer consider the cumulative impacts of a project, they said.”
[Washington Post, 1/3/20]
http://bit.ly/305vauJ
Report: Revision to environmental law could limit climate change review: “A new Trump administration
proposal aims to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act, which would make infrastructure and fossil fuel projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline easier to accomplish, the New York Times reports. What's happening: The proposed revision would allow agencies
to ignore "cumulative" consequences of major infrastructure projects — which courts have interpreted as weighing a project's impact on climate change. Details: The law in question is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which Congress first passed
in 1970. It dictates the government's environmental reviews of major infrastructure and energy projects. A government official "who has seen the proposed regulation but was not authorized to speak about it publicly" told the Times that the Trump administration
also plans to narrow the scope of which projects require environmental review. "That could make it likely that more projects will sail through the approval process without having to disclose plans to do things like discharge waste, cut trees or increase air
pollution," the NYT's Lisa Friedman writes. What to watch: Final action on the matter is expected before November's presidential election, per the Times. Between the lines, via Axios' Amy Harder: Global warming, along with other environmental issues, could
get short shrift with the change, but big changes in the law would likely require congressional approval, like the original law itself.”
[Axios, 1/3/20]
http://bit.ly/37Dh2ew
Trump Rule Would Exclude Climate Change in Infrastructure Planning: “Federal agencies would
no longer have to take climate change into account when they assess the environmental impacts of highways, pipelines and other major infrastructure projects, according to a Trump administration plan that would weaken the nation’s benchmark environmental law.
The proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act could sharply reduce obstacles to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil fuel projects that have been stymied when courts ruled that the Trump administration did not properly
consider climate change when analyzing the environmental effects of the projects. According to one government official who has seen the proposed regulation but was not authorized to speak about it publicly, the administration will also narrow the range of
projects that require environmental review. That could make it likely that more projects will sail through the approval process without having to disclose plans to do things like discharge waste, cut trees or increase air pollution. The new rule would no longer
require agencies to consider the “cumulative” consequences of new infrastructure. In recent years courts have interpreted that requirement as a mandate to study the effects of allowing more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It also
has meant understanding the impacts of rising sea levels and other results of climate change on a given project.”
[New York Times, 1/4/20]
http://bit.ly/2s30f5y
Trump proposal would nix climate reviews for new projects: report: “An expected proposal
from the Trump administration will relieve agencies from having to consider climate change when they approve projects like pipelines, highways and other big infrastructure projects, according to reporting from The New York Times. Changes to how agencies must
conduct environmental impact statements are expected to be unveiled next week and could drastically alter one of America’s bedrock environmental laws: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the Times, changes proposed by the White House’s
Council on Environmental Quality would narrow what sort of projects would require an environmental review. NEPA has been a chief target of President Trump, who has vowed to build pipelines and other major energy projects. Advocates for such projects have often
complained that the environmental assessments required under NEPA take too long and delay construction. Under the council’s proposal, projects that still require an environmental review would no longer have to consider “cumulative” effects of new projects.
Courts have largely interpreted that as studying how a project might contribute to climate, say by contributing heat-trapping greenhouse gasses, or how a project might be influenced by effects of climate change like extreme weather. “It has the potential to
distort infrastructure planning by making it easier to ignore predictable futures that could severely degrade the projects,” Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, told the Times. NEPA has been amended just
once since it became law 50 years ago, and environmentalists would be sure to issue swift legal challenges to any changes.”
[The Hill, 1/3/20]
http://bit.ly/2Fpoy0z
Proposed Trump Rule Cuts Out Climate Change Considerations in Infrastructure Planning: “Federal
agencies will no longer have to consider climate change when assessing the environmental impact of infrastructure projects under the Trump administration's proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, The New York Times reports. The act requires
the government to conduct a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of major projects, with long-term effects like climate change included. According to the Trump administration's proposed changes to the act, however, the type of project that would
have to undergo this kind of review would be more narrowly defined. Agencies would also not have to study the “cumulative” environmental consequences of the project, like greenhouse gas emissions or sea-level rise. The White House's Council on Environmental
Quality has not commented publicly on the matter.”
[The Daily Beast, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/305vh9D
Trump Starts 2020 With A New Bid To Ignore Climate Change:
“In its first environmental rollback of the new year, the Trump administration aims to weaken regulations that require U.S. federal agencies to consider climate change when assessing
the environmental impacts of new infrastructure projects, the New York Times reported Thursday. The proposed amendments would nullify a mandate from the 50-year-old U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that requires government agencies to take the
“cumulative” consequences of these projects into account, a government official familiar with the matter told the Times. This includes detailed analyses concerning the long-term effects of letting off additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and what
impact rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change could have on a project. These new regulations would also allow more projects to forego this environmental review process entirely as an attempt to streamline the approval process and eliminate
hurdles for developers (while also forcing fewer projects to disclose any of their potentially harmful environmental impacts). The Council on Environmental Quality plans to make 50 odd pages of revisions public on Wednesday, according to the Times. Instead
of tackling the policy itself, these amendments would stymie its implementation. “While the goals of NEPA remain the same as they did 50 years ago, the environmental review process designed to improve decision-making has become increasingly complex and difficult
to navigate,” Trump said in a New Year’s Day statement marking the act’s 50th anniversary. He goes on to criticise how project sponsors “face significant uncertainty and delays that can increase costs, derail important projects, and threaten jobs for American
workers and labour union members.”
[Gizmodo, 1/4/20]
http://bit.ly/2QSCw0a
Trump's 2020 plan: Change the rules on rules: “In the first half of 2020, Trump officials
are hurrying to fundamentally change the way environmental rules are crafted. The administration plans to finalize regulations that could hamstring future presidents from making rules that rely on public health studies or fail to fully consider the benefits
to Americans. Trump's regulatory plan released last fall showed hundreds of "economically significant" actions that the administration plans to finalize this year. Of those, at least 18 are noteworthy environmental rules — on air pollution and emissions to
drilling and water quality. But it's Trump's rules on the rulemaking process itself that could have the most lasting impact, according to experts. For example, EPA's proposed rule, "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," could restrict the scientific
evidence used to write air pollution rules. The Trump administration also plans to change the way cost-benefit analyses are calculated, weakening future limits on power plant emissions, for example. Both rules are expected to advance in early 2020. "Those
are foundational," said Betsy Southerland, a former longtime senior EPA career staffer and member of the Environmental Protection Network. "If they are finalized, from now on all environmental rules cannot count co-benefits and cannot use public health studies,
then they can paralyze future rulemaking while the litigation slowly winds forward." It would take considerable time for a new administration to reverse those rollbacks, and certain Trump actions could get lost in the morass. The Obama EPA similarly could
not undo some George W. Bush-era Clean Air Act permits that allowed aging facilities to continue to operate. But time is running out. The administration is up against a May deadline: Any regulations completed after that point would be subject to review under
the Congressional Review Act. If 2021 ushers in a new president and a left-leaning Congress, the pair could undo many of Trump's controversial triumphs.”
[E&E News, 1/3/20]
http://bit.ly/2ZU7t8t
Trump previews NEPA overhaul on 50th anniversary: “President Trump celebrated
the 50th anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act yesterday by declaring he would soon make the federal permitting process "far less time consuming." Trump issued a presidential message yesterday morning on the White House's rewrite of NEPA regulations.
He said they would be released "soon." "My Administration remains committed to improving the environmental review and permitting process while ensuring environmental protection," he wrote. "This will benefit our economy and environment while also enhancing
the quality of life for current and future generations of Americans." NEPA gives the public a voice in major federal decisions regarding projects like highways, pipelines and transmission lines. It was signed into law by former President Nixon on New Year's
Day 50 years ago, but guidance on implementing the statute has not been updated in decades. Trump administration officials have been retooling the NEPA rules, something energy companies have been lobbying for (Greenwire, Nov. 22, 2019). Environmentalists predict
weaker guidelines to benefit polluters. Trump said in his presidential message that the goals of NEPA remain "the same as they did 50 years ago" but that the environmental review process has become "increasingly complex and difficult to navigate." "Project
sponsors and ordinary Americans seeking decisions on permits from the Federal Government can face significant uncertainty and delays that can increase costs, derail important projects, and threaten jobs for American workers and labor union members," he wrote.
The president said his plan for the permitting process would be "far less time consuming" and that federal environmental reviews would be led by one federal agency and completed in two years. He said he directed the Council on Environmental Quality to "modernize"
the federal scrutiny and decisionmaking process. The White House's Office of Management and Budget recently completed its review of the proposed changes, and the rules are expected to be released any day now.”
[E&E News, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/2QWGwgq
Presidential Message on the 50th Anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act: “Signed
into law on January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider and inform the public of the environmental effects of proposed major Federal actions. NEPA’s enactment was the culmination of legislative efforts
to establish a national environmental policy and incorporate the consideration of environmental issues into the Federal Government’s decision-making processes. Today, on the 50th anniversary of this milestone legislation, we take the opportunity to reflect
upon NEPA’s goals of protecting our Nation’s natural resources and recommit to ensuring a safe, healthy, and productive environment for all Americans. From commuting to work or school and turning on lights at home to having access to clean, reliable drinking
water, the daily activities of all of our citizenry are affected by NEPA’s requirements. Many projects involving the construction of roads, bridges, highways, airports, transmission lines, conventional and renewable energy projects, broadband deployment,
and water infrastructure, as well as management activities on public lands, such as grazing, forest management, wildfire protection, and environmental restoration projects, must undergo Federal environmental review before they can proceed. While the goals
of NEPA remain the same as they did 50 years ago, the environmental review process designed to improve decision making has become increasingly complex and difficult to navigate. Project sponsors and ordinary Americans seeking decisions on permits from the
Federal Government can face significant uncertainty and delays that can increase costs, derail important projects, and threaten jobs for American workers and labor union members.”
[White House, 1/1/2020]
http://bit.ly/2tyRuAu
Pat Goss: Time to update environmental policy act:
“In 1986, “Top Gun” hit the big screens, the Chicago Bears won the Super Bowl – hopefully for the last time — and 1.44-megabyte floppy disks were hitting the market. It was also the
last time regulations enforcing one of our nation’s most important environmental laws – the National Environmental Policy Act – were updated. A lot has changed in technology, sports and culture since 1986, so why aren’t regulations that impact the infrastructure
our economy depends on being updated with the times? The environmental policy act was signed into law in 1970 as one our nation’s first broad frameworks for protecting our environment. The goal, a justifiable and important one, was to ensure proper environmental
consideration be given to construction projects. Proposals such as building airports, highways, military bases and other developments trigger assessment requirements to evaluate the environmental impact of these projects. Unfortunately, the NEPA process has
become bogged down in needless and often duplicative red tape. It has also often been used as a tool to block development – regardless of the actual environmental impact of a project. The problem with NEPA isn’t its goal of protecting the environment. Instead,
it’s the failure of the federal government to update the law’s implementing regulations. This failure leads to wasted time and money, delayed projects and no additional environmental protections compared to what could be achieved if we were to bring these
NEPA regulations into the 21st century.”
[Chippewa Herald, 1/4/20]
http://bit.ly/39IopTV
Pebble's 'survival' hinges on 2020 permit:
“After more than a decade of debate, 2020 is make-or-break for the Pebble mine. The Army Corps of Engineers expects to decide this year whether to permit the massive gold and copper
operation upstream from Alaska's most valuable salmon fishery. EPA then must choose whether to veto that decision. "This is the year we've been looking forward to for over 15 years," Pebble LP CEO Tom Collier said. Regulators' decisions could have crucial
consequences for Pebble, whose parent company is set to run out of money. A veto could require a costly legal challenge. An approved permit would mean beginning the detailed, expensive state permitting process. Canadian parent company Northern Dynasty Minerals
Ltd. underwent a series of major refinancings last year to keep the permitting process alive, according to securities filings, relying on investors to pony up the cash for a steady stream of new permitting expenses. Last winter, American and Canadian finance
regulators gave Northern Dynasty 25 months to sell off $50 million worth of new stock. Less than halfway into that time frame, the company has sold off $49.55 million through seven separate stock sales. At a mining conference in June, Northern Dynasty CEO
Ron Thiessen told investors he wanted to avoid another "very painful" refinancing, but Army Corps had requested that the company pay a contract for marine and lake bed surveys related to the mine's new shipping corridor. "If I don't sign the contract and have
the money in hand, I lose the vessels. I lose the vessels, I lose a year — my [environmental impact statement] isn't finished in 2020; it's finished in 2021. Hence the financing that was done this morning," he said. Three more stock sales later, Northern Dynasty
ended 2019 with only $450,000 in stock left to offer.”
[E&E News, 1/4/20]
http://bit.ly/2FBqIKN
Environmental review: Sen. Bakk revealed why a mineral withdrawal study makes sense:
“Sen. Tom Bakk spoke the truth at a recent community joint powers board meeting in Ely, and in doing so he highlighted why those concerned with the risks posed by the just-released
Twin Metals mine proposal have pushed for completion of a study on a proposed mineral withdrawal. For years, Twin Metals supporters have claimed that the study was somehow short-circuiting the established process, and that any attempt to foreclose the possibility
of a mine short of the completion of an environmental impact statement is somehow illegitimate. “Let’s follow the science. If it’s proven it can be done safely, then let’s do it,” has been the standard line from mine supporters for the past several years.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the question that the environmental review process is designed to answer. As Sen. Bakk noted, the environmental review, which is the initial part of the permitting process, is designed to better understand the risks and attempt to
mitigate those risks to the extent that’s financially feasible. That process is not designed to answer the more fundamental questions of whether a proposed project makes sense or poses too great a risk to allow to move forward. “So, once they start down that
road of applying for those permits it’s pretty hard to stop,” said Bakk. Whether the Twin Metals project can be done safely would not be addressed by an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a permitting review, which is why mine supporters are being disingenuous,
or simply reflecting their misunderstanding, when they claim otherwise. The reality is that a major sulfide mine is going to have significant, negative environmental effects. It will never be “safe” from an environmental perspective. Whether those effects
or risks are acceptable is a political question, not one that will be determined or even considered by an EIS or the subsequent permitting process.”
[Minnesota Post, 1/6/20]
http://bit.ly/2sIYgDU
Quarry project environmental review? It’s going to take a while: “RMR Industrial’s quarry
expansion proposal has been called an existential issue. Glenwood Springs Mayor Jon Godes said “we are at war” when announcing a PR campaign to oppose the quarry. But if history is a guide, the process to a decision about whether to approve or deny RMR’s expansion
proposal could take years. The timeline of the environmental review of the project, which would expand the limestone quarry from about 23 acres to 321 acres and remove millions of tons of rock per year, is anything but certain. “The (Bureau of Land Management)’s
current estimate for starting the formal (environmental impact statement) is summer 2020, although that could change to be earlier or later depending on the status of the studies and as BLM gathers more information,” according to a BLM fact sheet on the quarry
proposal. The agency has a number of baseline studies to complete before the environmental review process can begin in earnest, so the schedule is up in the air, according to BLM spokesman David Boyd. “We just don’t know. It’s not like we have a schedule and
I’m not saying what it is, we just have to wait and see where all the parts are,” Boyd said. One part of the baseline studies is a hydrological analysis. The study required several test wells and monitoring of the groundwater for a year. RMR planned to begin
drilling the monitoring wells in the fall. Due to the intense interest in all things related to the quarry, however, the BLM asked for public comments on issuing a categorical exclusion to approve the test wells. After receiving 250 comments, and a last-minute
letter from Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) urging more environmental review, the BLM decided to conduct an environmental assessment with “a detailed analysis of potential impacts of drilling the wells.” That analysis has begun, Boyd said, and should be complete
in the next few months. Because of the scoping period in late 2019, the assessment will not need additional public comment, Boyd said. The hydrological study needs a years worth of data from all four seasons, but there’s a chance that the BLM could begin public
comment, scoping and other parts of the environmental impact statement before all the hydrological data is in, Boyd said.”
[Glenwood Post Springs Independent, 1/5/20]
http://bit.ly/2FmNaqI
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.