Alleged Industry Back Channel Blasted by Environmental Groups: “The White House gave industry a special back-channel option to file public comments on a critical rewrite of environmental permitting rules, several environmental groups allege. The groups, who were unaware of the access, say they’re suspicious because the specific email address for comments wasn’t advertised publicly as an accepted means for submissions. They say it was used to give industry players an advantage in the administration’s effort to rewrite National Environmental Policy Act regulations to speed environmental permitting for major projects such as roads, bridges, and pipelines. “Usually you see the comments as they come in, and then you can respond to them,” said Kym Hunter, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. But the comments emailed to the White House Council on Environmental Quality still aren’t being displayed, nearly a month after the comment period closed. The center has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get copies of all the emailed comments. A spokesman for the Council on Environmental Quality, which is working on the NEPA rewrite, said last week that the agency has received public comments through the email address, which was published in its Federal Register notice announcing the rulemaking in January. But Daniel Schneider, the CEQ spokesman, denied that the agency did anything wrong.”

[Bloomberg, 4/6/20] https://bit.ly/2VaeuzS

President Donald Trump and lawmakers are sending mixed messages about whether infrastructure: “Congress and the White House spent the end of last week offering up a series of mixed messages about whether infrastructure will be part of the next coronavirus response package. Earlier in the week , House Democrats said they wanted to include a climate-heavy infrastructure plan they had outlined months ago — a push that quickly met Republican resistance. Perhaps due to that reluctance, Pelosi on Friday then indicated that her infrastructure goals may have to wait for a bill "beyond this." But a few hours later, Trump declared, "We'll be looking at an infrastructure package for our country, which will be so important," according to the White House pool — leaving us reporters trying to follow the developments shrugging in exasperation. On Sunday, Trump repeated the sentiment during the White House's coronavirus task force briefing.”

[POLITICO, 4/6/20] https://bit.ly/2RcUCLd

Climate clash looms over future stimulus package: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had been telling reporters that the fourth aid package could take shape by the end of this month, adding that it could include elements of the infrastructure framework released by House Democrats in January. More recently, she has backtracked on her push for infrastructure, saying it could end up in another economic stimulus package sometime down the road. The January framework would provide a total investment of $760 billion over five years, including tens of billions for climate-friendly initiatives such as clean energy projects, public transit upgrades and efforts to reduce carbon emissions from transportation. Leaders of the House Future of Transportation Caucus also wrote to Pelosi last week urging her to prioritize sustainability in any upcoming infrastructure investment. "Our next transportation system must be sustainable and address the challenges of climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the transport sector is now the leading contributor to national greenhouse gas emissions," wrote Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Jesús "Chuy" García of Illinois and Mark Takano of California. House Transportation & Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who is crafting his own surface transportation reauthorization bill, pushed back on the criticism from McConnell and others.”

[E&E News, 4/6/20] https://bit.ly/39Mtppd

Industry seeks to lease 100,000-plus acres near Canyonlands, Arches for drilling: “The Bureau of Land Management is considering industry-driven requests to lease tens of thousands acres for oil and gas development near Arches and Canyonlands national parks. In recent months, firms sought to nominate up to 360 parcels on these scenic lands popular for dispersed outdoor recreation outside Moab. Only 230 of these parcels, covering up to 150,000 acres, are open for leasing under a “master leasing plan” the BLM adopted in 2016 for the Moab area, according to an analysis conducted by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. Still, these remaining nominations, or “expressions of interest,” could represent a huge expansion of potential fossil energy development near or on places frequented by climbers, hikers, campers, river runners, off-roaders and mountain bikers. “The BLM must deny these egregious requests to open oil and gas development outside of Arches — on lands double the size of the national park itself,” said Erika Pollard, associate Southwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. “The BLM has the opportunity to reject this industry wish list that will only advance the climate crisis and threatens our national parks and treasured public lands, the Colorado River and the incredible outdoor experiences that millions of people come to enjoy each year.” BLM officials said many of these nomination filings, however, are incomplete and are not under consideration for potential leasing. Still, these remaining nominations, or “expressions of interest,” could represent a huge expansion of potential fossil energy development near or on places frequented by climbers, hikers, campers, river runners, off-roaders and mountain bikers. “The BLM must deny these egregious requests to open oil and gas development outside of Arches — on lands double the size of the national park itself,” said Erika Pollard, associate Southwest regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. BLM officials said many of these nomination filings, however, are incomplete and are not under consideration for potential leasing.”

[Salt Lake Tribune, 4/6/20] https://bit.ly/2UNk78e

District Court Upholds BLM Rollback of 2015 Hydraulic Fracturing Rule: “On March 27, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) motion for summary judgment, upholding the agency’s decision to rescind, or roll back, hydraulic fracturing regulations finalized during the Obama Administration (the “2015 Rule”). The Court’s decision in State of California v. Bureau of Land Management means that oil and gas operators on Federal and Indian lands will not have to comply with the additional requirements in the 2015 Rule. Instead, operators must continue to follow existing state and federal requirements. Because the 2015 Rule never went into effect before it was rescinded, operators will not have to change any of their existing practices. After studying the existing regulatory requirements, the Obama Administration decided that additional federal regulations were needed for hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian land. BLM passed the 2015 Rule, which would have included a comprehensive set of well-bore integrity requirements, the use of tanks for the interim storage of recovered waste fluids, mandatory notifications and waiting periods for key parts of the fracturing process, and chemical disclosures. The 2015 Rule never went into effect because it was challenged in court and enjoined, or blocked, by a federal district court judge in Wyoming. In challenging the Rescission under the APA, California argued that the change in policy was an abuse of discretion because the agency failed to offer a reasoned explanation for reversing its policy and that its reasons for the reversal run counter to the evidence before the agency.1 The Court disagreed and held that while BLM could have provided more detail, its explanation was sufficient and “did enough to clear the low bar of arbitrary and capricious review, and that is all the law requires.”

[Winson & Elkins LLP, 4/6/20] https://bit.ly/2XfNsd8

F-35 opponents challenge environmental review; DNR says National Guard not complying with pollution laws: “Attorneys for a group opposed to basing F-35 fighter jets at Truax Field say the Air Force’s review of environmental impacts is deficient and are calling for additional study before a final basing decision is announced. In a March 27 letter, attorneys hired by the Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin coalition say the environmental impact statement (EIS) published Feb. 28 has “numerous flaws” and does not meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Among other concerns, the group said the Air Force failed to address concerns about groundwater pollution that could result from the project and didn’t do enough to engage the low-income and minority populations who would be most affected. For example, the EIS acknowledges soil and groundwater contamination at Truax resulting from the use of firefighting foam containing hazardous PFAS compounds that could be spread by up to $120 million in construction to ready the base for the new planes. But, the group contends, it doesn’t sufficiently analyze the potential results of the construction or outline prevention measures. “At most, the final EIS broadly describes future processes that may be utilized to identify and address contamination, but it does not state whether they would be effective,” the letter states. Safe Skies also says the EIS understates the disproportionate impacts the project would have on minority and low-income communities and failed to comply with federal requirements to ensure those groups had an opportunity to participate in the process.”

[Wisconsin State Journal, 4/2/20] https://bit.ly/3bPqT2W

Justin McCarthy

Director, NEPA Campaign

The Partnership Project
1612 K St, NW

Washington, DC 20006 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, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council.