Shuster infrastructure proposal aims to 'reignite' reform efforts: “House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) yesterday released a draft infrastructure bill in an effort to reinvigorate stalled momentum on the issue. The draft language contains a plethora of proposals for addressing the nation's "crumbling infrastructure" — a familiar refrain on the Hill. One proposal involves establishing a pilot program for a "per-mile" user fee — an alternative to raising the federal gasoline tax. Oregon started a voluntary program in 2015 to charge a 1.7-cent-per-mile tax for using public roads. A common complaint about Trump's plan was that it lacked pay-fors. Another proposal involves creating a 15-member Highway Trust Fund Commission. Some of its members would be appointed by lawmakers, while others would be selected by the secretary of Transportation. The commission would be tasked with conducting a study that "identifies the current and future needs of the Nation's surface transportation system," among other things. The draft legislation would also codify President Trump's Aug. 15, 2017, executive order on streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects. It would seek to limit the timetable for National Environmental Policy Act reviews to two years. In a statement, Shuster said he was "frustrated" by the lack of progress on Trump's plan floated in February, which called for a $200 billion federal investment to leverage investment from the private sector. "The 2016 presidential campaign shined a spotlight on America's crumbling infrastructure," Shuster said. "Since election day, the American people have waited for action by their federal elected representatives, and I am just as frustrated as they are that we have yet to seriously consider a responsible, thoughtful proposal." While Shuster hopes to push through a broad infrastructure bill before he leaves Congress at the end of the year, it would be a heavy political lift. Floor time is typically limited during the second half of an election year, as are congressional appetites for tackling major legislation. Still, Shuster said he was hopeful that his proposal would at least be a conversation starter for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. "This discussion draft does not represent a complete and final infrastructure bill," he said. "It is meant to reignite discussions amongst my colleagues, and I urge all Members to be open-minded and willing to work together in considering real solutions that will give America the modern day infrastructure it needs.’”

[E&E News, 7/24/18] https://goo.gl/9BjpMC

Trump administration is gutting the bedrock of US environmental law: “In its rush to sell oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Trump administration isn’t just threatening to destroy one of our last pristine and untouched wild places. It is undermining fundamental elements of the National Environmental Policy Act. That means that, in addition to permanently harming the birthplace of the Porcupine Caribou Herd — which is vital to sustaining indigenous communities in both Alaska and Canada — the government’s reckless plan for oil drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is imperiling wolves, threatened polar bears, more than 200 bird species, and one of our bedrock environmental laws. As the former U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regional director for Alaska, I oversaw dozens of the agency’s decision-making processes and I can say with certainty that the government’s fast-tracking of an environmental impact statement for a lease sale does not allow time for a thorough public process and analysis as required by NEPA. A rushed NEPA process for the coastal plain leasing EIS would be a callous affront to the Gwich’in people, for whom the coastal plain is the “Sacred Place Where Life Begins.” It would pose existential threats to wildlife, including the 200,000-animal Porcupine Caribou Herd, which migrates hundreds of miles each year to its coastal plain calving grounds, and the threatened polar bears that den and give birth in designated critical habitat on the coastal plain.  It also would jeopardize the incredible 200 species of migratory birds that fly to the coastal plain each year, and violate the agency’s responsibility to the millions of Americans who cherish the Refuge as North America’s last great wilderness. NEPA is our nation’s basic environmental charter. It exists to ensure that decisions rely on sound science to reduce and mitigate harmful environmental impacts. Those promises cannot be met under the pressure of compressed and arbitrary time and page limits. The Interior Department should waive its inadequate new limitations on the EIS process for Arctic Refuge drilling. It is critical that the agency allow adequate time and commit the necessary resources to perform a rigorous and transparent study of all the significant environmental, cultural, and socio-economic impacts associated with a leasing program for the coastal plain, and to robustly engage the Gwich’in in a manner that suits their unique sovereign needs and interests.”

[The Hill, 7/24/18] https://goo.gl/Lg2QFD

Border Patrol’s Efforts to Inform the Public About Trump’s Wall Are ‘Careless’ and ‘Inadequate,’ Advocates Say: “More than 40 conservation and human rights groups are calling for increased public participation as the Trump administration moves forward with its plan to build 33 miles of border wall in the Rio Grande Valley. In a letter sent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Monday, the groups called on the agency to extend a public comment period by 60 days and hold at least three public forums in the Rio Grande Valley. The agency should send notice to all nearby residents, including letters in Spanish to native speakers, and publish the information in local media and the Federal Register, they said. Environmental advocates fear the new sections of wall will further degrade the natural landscape, interfere with efforts to conserve threatened and endangered species, worsen flooding and weaken the region’s ecotourism economy. “The construction … would significantly damage the environment and harmfully impact the culture, commerce and quality of life for communities and residents,” the groups write. o far Border Patrol hasn’t held a single public meeting in the Valley about its border wall plans. Over the last few weeks, the feds sent a letter to select residents and organizations requesting public input, but did not publish public notice or inform all residents, the groups say. The agency’s letter also asks recipients to provide comments within 30 days, but is undated, leaving residents unsure about the deadline. The groups say the comment period is “not adequate” and that the agency has “distributed this notice in a manner inconsistent with transparent and informed decision-making.” “None of us feel like this is legitimate or meaningful consultation,” said Laiken Jordahl, a borderlands campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that cosigned the Monday letter. Typically, with large infrastructure projects that have the potential to harm the surrounding environment, the government is required to follow the standards set in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Among the requirements are holding public meetings and hearings and publishing notice in local newspapers, bulletin boards and websites. The agency’s decision not to hold a single public meeting demonstrated “a lack of sincere interest in obtaining thoughtful comments and broad engagement,” the groups wrote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also requires federal agencies to provide notice to non-English speakers in their primary language, which community groups charge Border Patrol has not done. Since more than 80 percent of residents in Hidalgo and Starr County are native Spanish speakers, the groups wrote that the agency’s “failure to include Spanish-speaking members of the public is unacceptable and would amount to language-based public input suppression and discrimination.’”

[Texas Observer, 7/24/18] https://goo.gl/8NAZob

Dozens of groups ask Trump administration for more time to comment on border wall: “More than three dozen environmental, faith-based and immigrant rights groups are urging the federal government to extend the public-comment period for construction of the border wall, arguing that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security isn’t acting in good faith. The allegations come as the Trump administration is moving ahead with plans to build at least 33 miles of wall or other barriers in the Rio Grande Valley. "[Custom and Border Patrol's] 30-day comment period, without even a single public meeting, strongly suggests a lack of sincere interest in obtaining thoughtful comments and broad engagement with the diverse constituencies affected by border barrier construction," the coalition of organizations wrote in a letter dated Monday to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan and other federal officials. "Additionally, because many community members in the project area speak primarily Spanish, we ask that CBP send out invitations to comment on this project in Spanish." The government is also side-stepping regulations mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act and only reaching out to certain stakeholders, according to Laiken Jordahl, the Center for Biological Diversity’s border campaign leader. “Not all the groups that signed on to our letter received that invitation to comment and that’s something we’re really concerned about. They specifically chose who they wanted to send it to,” he said. Jordahl added that it’s unclear when the comment period began or ends. He said his center received a letter from federal officials on July 10 that stated it had 30 days to respond. But the letter wasn't dated. “There is some confusion as to when the deadline actually is. And I know different people received letters on different dates,” he said… Other groups that signed onto the letter include the ACLU Border Rights Center, La Unión del Pueblo Entero, the Sierra Club and the Hidalgo County Wildlands Network. The groups are asking that the comment period extend to 90 days and that more stakeholders be notified of what the government is proposing. They also argue that federal officials aren’t following current guidelines for constructing in environmentally sensitive or protected areas. “Finally, we are deeply concerned that this solicitation for public comment does not meet the standards for public consultation that the National Environmental Policy Act sets forth,” the letter states. “The NEPA process is a clear and well-established method of soliciting public comment, for which there is no substitute.’”

[Bryan-College Station Eagle,  8/23/18] https://goo.gl/d7sycn

Energy infrastructure environmental reviews are at a crossroads with the courts and the administration: “Large development projects often involve myriad federal and state permits that in turn trigger review under the National Environmental Protection Act. This administration has made streamlining permits and revising the decades-old regulation under NEPA a priority while, at the same time, some courts are going in the opposite direction, making NEPA more complicated through an expanded reach. Project developers should carefully watch the interplay between the executive branch, courts and federal agencies regarding NEPA as this interplay will ultimately create certainty or uncertainty for new energy development. NEPA is at the center of the discussion concerning efficient authorization of infrastructure projects because most large infrastructure projects, such as LNG facilities and interstate pipelines, trigger NEPA review. This multi-agency process can take a decade or longer to complete. Project developers had long taken comfort in United States Supreme Court caselaw that limited the scope of federal agencies’ environmental review under NEPA. This has come into play in recent cases involving the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions under NEPA reviews. Three LNG facilities, Freeport, Sabine Pass and Dominion Cove Point, were the subject of heated litigation regarding FERC’s failure to consider greenhouse gas issues. Relying on the Supreme Court case, the district court determined the effects of downstream greenhouse gas emissions were beyond what FERC was required to consider. However, in a more recent case involving the Sabal Trail pipeline, the DC Circuit court determined that, not only had FERC failed to include enough information in its review regarding downstream greenhouse gas emissions, but also that the defects were sufficient to vacate FERC’s authorization and potentially shut down the pipelines. Whether the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions will be required under NEPA reviews is not clear-cut. CEQ has withdrawn guidance requiring federal agencies to review the effects of greenhouse gases.”

[Houston Business Journal, 7/24/18] https://goo.gl/YZq8Ph

Ernst questions CEQ nominee on RFS, year-round E15 sales: “Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, questioned Council on Environmental Quality nominee Bridget Neumayr on her support for the Renewable Fuel Standard and E15 during a U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing July 19. President Trump announced his nomination of Neumayr to chair the CEQ in June. The CEQ is a division of the executive office of the president. It oversees implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, primarily through issuing guidance and interpreting regulations that implement NEPA’s procedural requirements. The CEQ also develops and recommends national policies that promote the improvement of environmental quality. During the hearing, Ernst stressed that the RFS is critical to America’s farmers. “In In 2016 and 2017 we’ve learned that the EPA under former administrator Scott Pruitt’s leadership granted 48 small refinery hardship exemptions of the 53 petitions that had been summited to the agency,” she said. “These waivers effectively reduced the 2016 and 2017 renewable volume obligations by a combined 2.25 billion gallons of biofuels, which has significantly weakened the demand for biofuels. It’s put thousands of our jobs in jeopardy and truly undermined congressional intent of the law. “Do you believe the RFS should be implemented in a manner consistent with the original intent of Congress and, if confirmed, would you support the spirit and the letter of the law?” Ernst asked Neumayr. In response, Neumayr committed to supporting the letter and intent of the RFS statute…Finally, Ernst pressed Neumayr on the issue of year-round E15 sales.  “As you know, E15 is a federally approved blend of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent regular gasoline,” Ernst said. “Fuel retailers across the country want to offer E15 year round and these retailers have invested millions of dollars in infrastructure to help make this possible. However, we do have an outdated Reid vapor pressure regulation which is blocking them from offering E15 during the summer months, which would be June 1 through Sept. 15. The year-round sale of higher ethanol blends like E15 would provide benefits not only to farmers, but also to consumers and our environment. Earlier this year President Trump called the restriction unnecessary and ridiculous and he committed to fixing it by expanding the RVP waiver to higher ethanol blends.’”

[Ethanol Producer Magazine, 8/23/18] https://goo.gl/yYhM2X

Justin McCarthy

Communications Director, NEPA Campaign

The Partnership Project
1101 Connecticut Ave NW, 10^th Floor

Washington, DC 20036 USA

T: (202) 650-0327
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.