The Nickel Report

On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO, (23-975), a case challenging the scope of an environmental review conducted by the Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA”) for an 88-mile rail line project in Utah. The question before the Court is whether NEPA requires federal agencies to study the environmental impacts of proposed projects beyond the proximate effects of the action that an agency has no authority to regulate.

On May 1, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published the final Phase 2 rule overhauling the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations. The final rule, titled the “Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule” (Phase 2 Rule), will apply to all actions starting the NEPA processes beginning after July 1, 2024, and the agencies have discretion to apply to NEPA reviews that are currently underway.

On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) to suspend the United States’ debt limit until January 2025. The legislation also imposes changes to the environmental review process for infrastructure projects. Most notably, the FRA amends key provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a touchstone environmental statute that imposes procedural requirements for the approval of major federal actions. The amendments to NEPA are the first major changes to the statute in almost 40 years. These changes signal Congress’s intent to streamline the environmental review of projects and improve the federal permitting process for energy projects. The amendments to NEPA will likely influence (and may delay) the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Phase 2 revisions to NEPA’s implementing regulations which are currently undergoing interagency review. The FRA also expedites the approval process for all permits for the Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline project in West Virginia.

President Biden signed a new Executive Order (E.O.) to advance environmental justice (EJ) late last week, just in time for Earth Day. E.O. 14096, Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, aims to carry out its title through a bevy of actions, including requiring agencies to create EJ strategic plans, directing research on EJ issues, expanding notifications for toxic chemical releases, and increasing coordination on EJ by establishing a new EJ Interagency Council and White House Office of Environmental Justice. The new E.O. builds on the Biden Administration’s “whole-of-government” approach to EJ, making clear that the obligation to consider and address EJ applies across federal agencies. The E.O.’s directives are likely to guide federal agency permitting, funding grants, and other authorizations for projects or activities that may have implications for EJ communities. On the same day as the E.O. was signed, the administration also announced a handful of other steps to further its EJ priorities.

The Biden-Harris administration is taking new steps to put some teeth into its emphasis on addressing environmental justice (EJ). Two recent developments are worth noting given the potential impact on projects and communities. 

One, EPA announced on September 24, 2022 that it is launching its new Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR or EJ Office). Establishing the EJ Office on par with other key EPA offices, such as the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the Office of Land and Environmental Management, signals the emphasis that the Biden-Harris administration is placing on EJ.

Two, in August 2022, EPA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) issued a guidance document entitled Interim Environmental Justice and Civil Rights in Permitting Frequently Asked Questions (EJ FAQs) that outlines EPA’s current views as to how federal, state, and local permitting agencies can meet the requirements of civil rights laws when they are administering environmental permitting requirements. The FAQs document signals greater focus on environmental justice in permitting, even noting that denial of permits based on environmental justice or civil rights concerns may be appropriate in some cases.

A discussion of the National Environmental Policy Act and related regulations and their implications for project development.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must determine if their proposed major federal actions (including permit authorizations for projects sponsored by private entities) will significantly affect the human environment and consider the environmental and related social and economic effects. This means that virtually any project that requires a federal permit or authorization may be required to undergo a NEPA review. Development of broadband infrastructure, roads, bridges, oil and gas pipelines, and renewable energy facilities are just a few examples of the types of activities that may trigger NEPA review.

One of the most frequent terms heard in conjunction with President-Elect Biden’s energy and environmental agenda is “environmental justice,” which is often described as an overarching objective as well as a key component of the incoming administration’s climate agenda.  This post looks at how the Biden Administration may translate environmental justice principles into concrete executive actions, and how project proponents can prepare for increased focus on environmental justice in their permitting.

In this article, the authors discuss the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and environmental justice review requirements for federal agency actions, recent challenges and court decisions showcasing the increased scrutiny and focus on environmental justice reviews for project permitting, recent NEPA regulation and other environmental justice developments, and what the recent cases and other recent regulatory and political developments may mean for project permitting and environmental justice.

“Decommissioning” is the process of terminating oil and gas operations at offshore platforms. It includes dismantling and removal of platforms and related infrastructure to restore the ocean and seafloor to pre-lease conditions. As elaborated in a prior post, decommissioning may involve partial structure removal or toppling in place, including the creation of artificial reefs. The U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) estimates that about 3,700 active oil and gas platforms are under its jurisdiction, 40 percent of which are over 25 years old and likely to require decommissioning soon.

As we have previously reported, in July 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published its highly anticipated final rule to improve its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the first comprehensive revision of the NEPA implementing regulations in over forty years.  The final rule, which has generated much controversy and spurred numerous lawsuits, goes into effect today.  This post provides a brief update on the pending litigation and implementation of the new rule.

Even as COVID-19 is altering daily routines and operations within the federal agencies, all indications are that natural resource agencies continue to work on agency priorities and to advance the regulatory agenda.  Agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), Natural Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) have not indicated any plans, at this point, to delay their efforts on the Administration’s key initiatives. Public interest groups and organizations representing state and local officials have asked the White House to freeze rulemakings that are not directly related to the COVID-19 response effort.  EPA has responded to these requests by noting that it continues to be open for business and is fully functioning.

The Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak is affecting virtually every sector of society and the economy. The healthcare sector and government agencies are on the front lines of the response. Providing support to these critical response activities as well as striving to maintain the strength of the overall economy by continuing regular business operations is vitally important. The private sector has important roles to play. The purpose of this blog post is to briefly outline some practical and legal tools available to help provide both direct support and maintain broader economic activities while ensuring environmental protection and compliance with natural resource laws.

This blog post will be updated as new or relevant information becomes available.

Federal environmental reviews are high on the list of project time, costs and risk drivers. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation are often chief among those drivers. The impact of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement or Biological Opinion (such as scheduling; consultant, mitigation and market opportunity costs; and litigation risks) often turns on the scope of analysis, which in turn depends on determining which effects will be caused by the action. In August 2019, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established, for the first time, a regulatory causation standard governing ESA section 7 consultations, and, in January 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed a new rule clarifying the causation standard and scope of review under NEPA.

On January 9, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released its highly anticipated proposed rule to improve its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposed changes would be the first comprehensive amendment of the NEPA regulations since their original publication in 1978. CEQ’s proposed changes are designed to streamline and speed the NEPA review process, clarify important NEPA concepts, and codify key guidance and case law. CEQ’s Proposal is informed by comments it received on last year’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

NEPA requires that federal agencies analyze the environmental effects of their proposed federal actions. This means that virtually any project that requires a federal permit or authorization could be required to undergo a NEPA review. Development of broadband infrastructure, roads, bridges, oil and gas pipelines, and renewable energy facilities are just a few examples of the types of activities that could trigger NEPA. A NEPA review can take significant agency and applicant resources, can substantially delay permits and can provide a basis for a federal court challenge to the project.

On January 9, 2020, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility filed suit in the DC District Court challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval of over 2,000 oil and gas leases. The leases were sold through 23 different lease sales, spanning from December 8, 2016, to March 20, 2019, and they cover over two million acres of public lands across five western states—Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The conservation groups contend that BLM continually fails to fully account for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas leasing.

In the wake of the April 19 ruling by Judge Morris of the US District Court of the District of Montana that required the Department of the Interior (DOI) to conduct an environmental review on its decision to lift the coal leasing moratorium, the parties disagree on the necessary remedy and the next steps. While DOI is requesting additional time to finalize its environmental review for its decision to lift the moratorium, environmental groups and states are requesting the court vacate then-Secretary Zinke’s Secretarial Order that lifted the moratorium altogether.

On June 26, 2019, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released draft guidance instructing federal agencies on how to consider and document greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the effects of climate change when evaluating proposed federal actions, including rulemakings and permitting decisions, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The guidance, if finalized, would replace a now-revoked Obama Administration 2016 guidance, which advanced broad positions on how agencies should evaluate GHG emissions and the effects of climate change when undertaking NEPA reviews for proposed federal actions.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a draft environmental assessment (EA) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of lifting the federal coal leasing moratorium. Publication of the draft EA opens a 15-day comment period that ends on June 6, 2019. This review was necessitated by the April 19 decision of the US District Court for Montana in Citizens for Clean Energy, et al v. Department of the Interior, et al. The court held that BLM’s actions in lifting the moratorium via a March 2017 secretarial order (Zinke Order) were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it was a major federal action for which there was no such review. The court did not immediately reinstate the coal leasing moratorium or require a specific environmental review, but instead stated that BLM had an obligation to study the environmental impacts of lifting the coal leasing moratorium and required the parties to submit additional briefing on the remedy.

The successful completion of major infrastructure construction projects often depends on the amount of time required for federal agencies to process environmental reviews and make authorization decisions. This is particularly true where multiple federal agencies are involved in the process and the decisions or timeliness of one can influence the decisions or timeliness of another. While numerous administrations have attempted to address multi-agency federal permitting processes in an effort to gain efficiencies, the Trump administration has taken significant steps to ensure that federal agencies work together in ways that will reduce the amount of time required to complete all environmental reviews and issue all required authorizations.

The US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ordered the $750 million Bayou Bridge pipeline to halt construction within the Atchafalaya Basin when it concluded that the US Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental analysis likely violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act due to the following deficiencies:

• The Corps did not provide sufficient explanation for how the proposed off-site mitigation would compensate for the loss of wetlands impacted by construction; and
• The Corps failed to sufficiently consider and address historical ...

Two notable developments in the past few weeks signal potential changes ahead to the policies and timeframes for pipeline approvals, particularly natural gas pipelines under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversight. These developments reflect both the increased public scrutiny of the pipeline approval process seen in recent years and the emphasis placed by the current administration on expediting review and approval of major infrastructure projects, two factors that are in some tension with each other.

See the full report on PipelineLaw.com.

This week, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction, halting construction of the $750 million Bayou Bridge Pipeline. Judge Shelly D. Dick concluded that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in authorizing the project, did not provide sufficient explanation for how the proposed off-site mitigation would compensate for the loss of wetlands impacted by construction. In addition, the Court found the Corps’ environmental analysis failed to sufficiently consider and address historical impacts to wetlands from similarly situated ...

On Monday, the Trump Administration released an ambitious legislative proposal that aims to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment over the next 10 years, expedite the federal permitting process, address rural infrastructure needs, and prepare the American workforce for the future. To accomplish those goals, the proposal includes aggressive recommendations to streamline key federal environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects. In addition to traditional forms of infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and airports, the Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America addresses drinking and wastewater systems, energy infrastructure, veterans’ hospitals, and Brownfields and Superfund sites.

Federal agencies that authorize or permit large infrastructure projects, like interstate natural gas pipelines, are often subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and environmental organizations frequently rely on NEPA to challenge a project. The D.C. Circuit recently struck down a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve the construction and operation of three interstate natural gas pipelines because the Court found defects in FERC’s NEPA analysis. The court’s decision to vacate FERC’s authorization now threatens to shut down the pipelines, including the Sabal Trail pipeline currently supplying natural gas to newly constructed power plants in Florida.

Once large infrastructure projects, such as oil and natural gas pipelines, receive federal government approval, they are often the target of legal challenges from opposition groups. Opponents repeatedly argue that the environmental review, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was insufficient. If a court finds deficiencies in the government’s NEPA analysis, can a court halt construction or cease operations even after years of project design, permit approvals at all levels of government, and tens of millions of dollars in investment? This question ...

Several presidential administrations have sought to shorten the lengthy process for obtaining federal authorizations and permits, with particular attention on infrastructure projects that usually require multiple federal permits with accompanying environmental reviews. Despite consistent interest in improving this process, delays persist, in part because of how courts have interpreted the level of analysis required during these environmental reviews. This past Tuesday, President Trump issued a new Executive Order (EO) 13807: “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects.” As this EO is implemented, the big question is: How much relief can this or any other executive action provide?

Despite oil already flowing through the pipeline, federal litigation involving the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) took another turn last week when partial summary judgment was granted to tribes challenging the adequacy of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ review of DAPL under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other statutes. Two tribes, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, filed suit in July 2016 attempting to block construction of the last remaining segment and operation of DAPL. As sometimes is the case, agency approvals came faster than the court’s opinion, and without a stay of proceedings DAPL began operating in early June 2017. Having granted partial summary judgment, the court did not require pipeline operations to cease, instead delaying the question of an appropriate remedy until after further briefing by the parties.

About to turn 100, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) is among the oldest wildlife (or any environmental) laws. Yet major questions persist whether the Act applies to the unintended “take” of birds, and how to avoid criminal liability under the Act for many common and beneficial commercial activities.

Yesterday President Trump signed several Executive Orders (EOs) and Presidential Memoranda designed to speed environmental permitting and reviews. Among them is an EO to “Expedite Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects.” While past administrations have recognized the costs and delays of federal environmental permitting and encouraged timely decisions by regulatory agencies (e.g., EOs 13,212, 13,274 and EO 13,604), President Trump’s EO reflects a new sense of determination by the White House to move important infrastructure projects forward. The EO reflects a recognition that major infrastructure projects trigger an array of overlapping environmental and natural resource laws and requirements.

On November 2, 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) announced its intention to issue a permit authorizing the take of up to three golden eagles during the five-year permit term for the 48-turbine Alta East Wind facility in Kern County, California. The announcement was contained in a notice published in the Federal Register, which also announced the availability of the Service’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the issuance of the permit. The permit is to be issued 30 days following the publication of the Federal Register notice.

There has been much controversy in recent weeks surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a 1,172-mile line proposed to carry crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Although only 3 percent of the DAPL requires federal approval, much of the pipeline has already been constructed In particular, the DAPL has raised issues regarding the scope and adequacy of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps’) consultation with federal tribes in authorizing segments of oil and gas pipelines crossing federal waters, and has caused the administration to consider reforms for how tribes weigh in on infrastructure reviews.