OPINION: The Trump administration hates the National Environmental Protection Act: “As Alaskans,
we care about our environment, because we know the lands and waters provide us with places to harvest food, to fish or simply camp and recreate. Whether it’s our national forests in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, or Bureau of Land Management areas that
stretch from the Arctic to the interior, these public lands define our state. They provide us with endless opportunities, and we can live daily what amounts to a “bucket list” trip for many in the lower 48 U.S. states. We can keep it that way — for us and
for future generations — if we use our Alaskan expertise to inform decisions that could impact our lands and waters. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is pulling us back from having a say in these decisions and threatening our ability to protect what
we love about Alaska. The Trump administration has now finalized major proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), rewriting the rules that govern how agencies review development projects under that landmark environmental law. NEPA is
our country’s national charter for the environment, and it meets its purpose elegantly by requiring information-based decisions over political mandates. It forces federal decision-makers to consider, before they make their decisions, what the impact of their
actions will be on the environment, on wildlife and on local communities. It also mandates that they seek the input of the people that will be most impacted before they decide. Alaskans want their voices to be heard on, for example, the proposed massive Pebble
Mine that could destroy a world class fishery. Equally important is having say on projects that could affect the Kenai River, a place that hasn’t made national headlines often but that matters greatly to tens of thousands of Alaskans. That’s why we want the
opportunities that NEPA provides to us — allowing the people whose livelihood is centered on Alaska salmon, the people who live in a particular area and the people who would be impacted by development, the chance to lend their expertise and perspective to
the federal government.”
[The Hill, 7/18/20]
https://bit.ly/32DADw2
Trump administration waives federal regulations to expedite border construction in Rio Grande Valley:
“The Trump administration said Friday that it is waiving several environmental regulations in order to proceed with border-security projects in South Texas. The announcement was posted in the federal register and states the waivers are necessary to advance
the building of new roads near the border in Starr County. The county is part of the Rio Grande Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, which remains one of the busiest areas for unauthorized crossings in the country. "Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal
entry into the United States," the notice states. It waives provisions included in several federal statues, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Archeological Resources Protection
Act, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act and the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, among others. A group of advocacy organizations said the announcement is the latest in a series of ill-advised plans that will destroy environmentally sensitive
areas, endangered species and historical burial sites. "Trump wastes billions of dollars on his pet political project instead of investing in the direly needed life-saving resources we need to survive this [COVID-19] pandemic," Norma Herrera, the rapid response
organizer with the Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network, a coalition of nonprofit advocacy groups. "To further rub salt in our wounds, this latest waiver of crucial protections will further threaten our families, our constitutional rights, our natural spaces,
and the Rio Grande River, the lifeblood of our community.’”
[Salon, 7/19/20]
https://bit.ly/3hiopgb
Court’s Ruling Against Trump Elevates Debate on Climate Metric:
“A federal district judge’s decision striking down the Trump administration’s rollback of methane emissions standards could fuel other litigation over an obscure tool used to study
the impacts of climate change. California Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers last week rebuked the Bureau of Land Management for eliminating Obama-era restrictions on releases of the potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas infrastructure on public and tribal lands.
Her opinion included a detailed assault on how the land agency used a metric called the social cost of methane, calling the approach “riddled with flaws.” Industry advocates say the judge improperly substituted her own judgment instead of deferring to the
agency. But legal scholars expect litigants to use the decision to push for enhanced climate analysis in other federal decisions. “This decision will certainly be important as we work through litigation in other contexts,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney
at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program…
But the decision serves as a powerful warning to other agencies seeking to justify rollbacks by using a domestic-only metric to study the social costs of greenhouse gases, said Jason A. Schwartz, legal director for New York University’s Institute for Policy
Integrity. The group filed an amicus brief supporting challenges to the Trump administration’s methane rollback. “No administration can change what the best science or the best economics is by fiat,” he said, paraphrasing the opinion. “You can’t cherry-pick
which aspects of a model or which recommendations from a scientific body or literature you want, and then ignore the rest.” Similar debates over the social cost of greenhouse gases—or about proper cost-benefit analysis more generally—are cropping up in litigation
over the Trump administration’s decisions to undercut Obama-era targets for vehicle emissions, and constrain how the Environmental Protection Agency weighs the collateral benefits of air pollution rules.”
[Bloomberg, 7/20/20]
https://bit.ly/2OJhBvQ
Supreme Court decision declaring half of Oklahoma Indian land raises big questions for oil drillers:
“Oklahoma's oil industry, already beset by the coronavirus pandemic, now is dealing with the uncertainty stemming from a major Supreme Court decision declaring nearly half of eastern Oklahoma to be Native American land.
With the high court’s ruling, oil and gas drillers in the nation’s fourth largest oil-producing state suddenly find themselves operating within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and four other tribal
reservations. About a quarter of Oklahoma’s recent oil and gas wells and around 60 percent of its refinery capacity now lie within the territory of five tribes — the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole — according to the research firm ClearView
Energy Partners. Perhaps more importantly, the network of pipelines pumping crude to and from Cushing, Okla. — a crucial oil terminal for the Keystone XL — spider-web across the redrawn reservation borders. Instead of dealing with business-friendly regulators
from the state, oil producers may soon have to contend with both tribes and the federal government. “The reality is that there’s something potentially that could be very detrimental to the oil and gas industry,” said Dewey Bartlett, a former Tulsa mayor who
runs Keener Oil & Gas Company, a five-person oil and gas production and exploration firm with most of its wells now in Indian country. The 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and joined by the court’s liberals, ostensibly deals with criminal
law for the ancestors of those forced to march the 19th century Trail of Tears into present-day Oklahoma. But the majority opinion writers acknowledge the ruling raises big questions over taxation and the enforcement of environmental rules. Those questions
may take years to settle. “In reaching our conclusion about what the law demands of us today, we do not pretend to foretell the future and we proceed well aware of the potential for cost and conflict around jurisdictional boundaries, especially ones that have
gone unappreciated for so long,” Gorsuch wrote in McGirt v. Oklahoma. “But it is unclear why pessimism should rule the day.’”
[Washington Post, 7/20/20]
https://wapo.st/2ODXtLP
Pipeline firms scale back plans amid legal protests: “A decade ago, when the shale boom
was still in its infancy, developers lined up to build long-distance natural gas pipelines to supply distant markets with low-cost energy to replace aging, dirty coal and oil-burning power plants. But after years of legal fights with environmental groups trying
to eradicate carbon-emitting fossil fuels, pipeline companies are backing off large-scale pipeline projects. The decision by its developers earlier this month to cancel the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline project is just the beginning, experts say. “There’s
so much uncertainty on the project timeline and the cost you are unlikely to see another major natural gas pipeline built (that crosses state lines),” said Sam Andrus, executive director of North American gas at the consulting firm IHS Markit. “These environmental
groups have made it their explicit goal to delay these projects and raise the costs. And they’re getting better at it as time goes on.” If more pipelines go the way of the Atlantic Coast, it would limit markets for natural gas producers in states such as Texas,
which produces more gas than any state and has watched its economy thrive under oil and gas boom brought on by hydraulic fracturing. A recent study by the American Petroleum Institute predicts that demand from oil and gas producers would support the construction
of more than 17,000 miles pipelines during the next five years. But between legal fights with environmentalists and Democratic state politicians such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo moving to block pipelines from their states to address climate change, it looks
unlikely that anywhere close to that amount will be built. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, proposed by North Carolina-based Duke Energy and Virginia-based Dominion Energy, was announced six years ago in a bid to connect the United States’ largest natural gas
basin, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, with southern states that had long relied on coal for power.”
[Houston Chronicle, 7/20/20]
https://bit.ly/2ZP6I2d
BLM signs documents on federal coal acres near Beulah: “The Bureau of Land Management has
signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record on an environmental assessment that analyzes potential impacts from leasing 320-acres of federal coal to the Coyote Creek Mining Company. The comment period on the environmental assessment ended
on June 9. The proposed lease tracts are adjacent to the company’s existing Coyote Creek Mine in Mercer County, southwest of Beulah. The tracts contain an estimated 5.23 million tons of federal coal. The coal lease application is part of Coyote Creek Mining
Company’s ongoing mining operation and would extend the life of the mine. The federal coal is within the current mine planning area. The Coyote Creek environmental assessment is part of a Department of the Interior pilot project to streamline required National
Environmental Policy Act compliance. To increase operational efficiencies, the BLM and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement are working as co-lead agencies on the environmental assessment, allowing each agency to issue its own findings
regarding the significance of potential impacts resulting from leasing and permitting coal mining.”
[Minot Daily News, 7/20/20]
https://bit.ly/3hioCzZ
Justin McCarthy
He/Him/His
Director, NEPA Campaign
The Partnership Project
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, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural
Resources Defense Council.