Document MJaO5J47oMa2qeM99DLxZV0g9

b) (5' Lisa On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Jeremy Kruger <jkruger@blm.gov> wrote: All, Here's what I heard today from our Deputy Assistant Director of Resources and Planning. Last week's Secretarial Order (SO) regarding energy independence affects the BLM's mitigation and climate change programs. Two teams have been formed to work on the SO and both have until next week to relay what polices and actions we have taken regarding mitigation and climate change...we don't know the next steps after the team's reports are turned in next week. Maybe someone from the solicitor's office can offer another perspective, but this is all we know in the SWA program at this time...we will relay more as soon as we are told... Jeremy Sent from my iPhone On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Cook, Forrest <fcook@blm.gov> wrote: Yeah, we are not changing our GHG and Climate Change sections other than removing any reference to the CEQ Guidance, Forrest Air Resource Specialist BLM - Colorado 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215 303-239-3792 On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Peck, Kenneth (Alan) <kpeck@blm.gov> wrote: The related Greenwire article below isn't the answer, but may be of interest... Alan CLIMATE Killing NEPA guidance won't stop lawsuits over impacts Amanda Reilly, E&E News reporter Published: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 Even when the Trump administration revokes a guide for considering the climate impacts of federal actions, legal experts say agencies likely still will be held liable in court for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions. As part of his executive order yesterday, President Trump ordered the White House Council on Environmental Quality to rescind Obama administration guidance on how to account for climate change in National Environmental Policy Act reviews. But several courts have already ruled that NEPA's requirement for agencies to assess indirect effects of a project extends to climate impacts, legal experts said. Agencies would be "smart" to continue to assess climate impacts, said Jayni Hein, policy director at the New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity. "Whenever greenhouse gases are significant or rise from the project, either directly or indirectly," she said, "almost regardless of what the executive order says -- if an agency doesn't do the proper analysis under NEPA, it could be subject to litigation." Environmentalists are already vowing to bring lawsuits against federal agencies if they take the executive order to mean climate change shouldn't come into their calculations. "I do think this is one of the areas in which the president's order is more bark than bite, because analysis of climate is plainly required under NEPA and other governing laws," said Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice's vice president of litigation for climate and energy. Also likely to lead to increased litigation is the Trump administration's decision to revoke the social cost of carbon, a metric created by the Obama administration to measure the economic costs of greenhouse gas emissions. At the very least, the actions announced yesterday -- which Trump said will bring in a "new era of energy" and help coal miners -- will likely cause uncertainty as the courts deal with lawsuits, predicted Robert Verchick, a professor at the College of Law at Loyola University New Orleans and president of the Center for Progressive Reform. "I think that what this does is create an atmosphere conducive to more and more litigation, and ultimately, that's not going to help anybody, including the companies he's hoping to help, because they are just going to be in a more uncertain legal environment," Verchick said. The Obama CEQ's guidance formally instructed agencies to consider "indirect" climate effects of major federal actions. It specifically cited the combustion of coal from a federal lease sale as an example of an indirect effect that is reasonably foreseeable under NEPA. While the guidance was finalized only in August 2016, it followed a series of court rulings addressing the issue of greenhouse gases and NEPA (Greenwire, Aug. 5, 2016). More than a dozen lawsuits in the past five years have challenged federal reviews of fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure projects because of failure to consider upstream and downstream emissions, according to Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. In those cases, courts have mostly ruled that "indirect" effects under the law include downstream greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel activities. They've specifically found that agencies need to assess the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions when it comes to extraction of coal. In 2003, for example, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Surface Transportation Board had failed to consider the combustion of coal that would be transported on rail lines servicing Wyoming's Powder River Basin. In 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that environmental impact statements assessing road construction for coal-related activities and the addition of newly opened lands to existing coal leases lacked a necessary analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. "There are some instances where courts have said quite clearly that entities have to look at downstream emissions from extraction operations, from coal leasing in particular," said Michael Burger, executive director at the Sabin Center. "That's what the statute requires." There's less existing case law around upstream emissions and projects involving transmission lines and oil and gas export facilities. Several cases challenging the Department of Energy's approval of liquefied natural gas terminals are pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 'Muddying the waters' Outside of fossil fuel extraction, at least one federal appeals court has ruled that NEPA compels an analysis of climate change impacts. Environmentalists successfully argued in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had failed to take a requisite "hard look" at the greenhouse gas implications of automobile fuel efficiency standards for light trucks and SUVs. In that same case, the court also found that the agency couldn't give greenhouse gas emissions a value of "zero" in a cost-benefit analysis. To be sure, a few district courts have ruled against requiring the consideration of climate change under NEPA, Hein said. But on the whole, they have asserted that the language of NEPA means agencies must take climate change into account. The Trump order calling for rescinding the CEQ guidance is "muddying the waters," Hein said. "What the Obama administration guidance did," Hein said, "was simply make crystal clear that under NEPA, agencies are supposed to analyze these greenhouse gases." Verchick, who was involved in the development of the CEQ guidelines during the Obama presidency, said the Obama administration wanted to ensure, in light of the court decisions, that agencies were approaching greenhouse gas analyses in a uniform way in NEPA reviews. Getting rid of the guidance "opens the door for more litigation," he said. "To retract those guidelines -- that's something that CEQ can definitely do. And when it does, there will no longer be any instructions on how to look at climate impacts," he said. "But that doesn't mean that those impacts doesn't have to be studied and that other courts will require that." Burger said he expects environmentalists not only to sue agencies that don't consider greenhouse gases in NEPA reviews, but also to challenge the ways agencies that do look at greenhouse gases actually analyze the impacts. Coal leasing could be a particular target of litigation under the Trump administration, he predicted, given the case law involving coal extraction. Under Trump, Burger said, "they'll do some kind of analysis and come out with an analysis that makes a number of assumptions that results in a lower number. That'll be an aspect in a lawsuit." Dillen of Earthjustice highlighted some of the case law and said agencies are still legally obligated to consider the climate consequences of their actions. "I like our chances in court when this administration tries to ignore climate change," she said On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Tuers, Charis <ctuers@blm.gov> wrote: We are already getting pushback for attempting to continue with current policy. I would appreciate the Solicitor's weighing in on this topic on our call if we don't have further guidance by then. Charis A. Tuers Air Resource Specialist Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office (307) 775-6099 <b>ctuers@blm.gov On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Kruger, Jeremy <jkruger@blm.gov> wrote: All, We are waiting for guidance to come from agency leadership regarding the recent SO and EO and its implications. The only thing Theresa and I can say is to continue under current policy. We have not yet been told anything. As soon as either the Director, Deputy or one of the Assistant Directors (AD) provides the Division Chiefs with direction we will pass it along promptly. We agree that we need to know what is next...we have an all employee meeting today and if nothing is mentioned, I'll ask and let them know our colleagues in the field and at the NOC need to know how to proceed. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Jeremy On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Carl (Tom) Coulter <ccoulter@blm.gov> wrote: I agree. See the thread I had w/ the Branch Chief here (attached). Something from WO must come down quickly as NEPA documents in the pipeline, as well as those entering the pipeline, will suffer from lack of guidance. We can't/shouldn't kick the can down the road on this. Theresa shod facilitate this ASAP. Tom From: Tuers, Charis [mailto:ctuers@blm.gov1 Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:13 AM To: Alexander, Theresa <talexander@blm.gov> Cc: Carl Coulter <ccoulter@blm.gov>: Chad Meister <cmeister@blm.gov>: Craig Nicholls <cnicholl@blm.gov>: David Maxwell <dmaxwell@blm.gov>: Derek Strohl <dstrohl@blm.gov>: Forrest Cook <fcook@blm.gov>: Hovey, Melissa <Mhovev@blm.gov>: Leonard Herr <lherr@blm.gov>: Lisa Christianson <l50chris@blm.gov>: Mueller, David <dmueller@blm.gov>: Nicole Virella <nvirella@blm.gov>: Ryan McCammon <rmccammon@blm.gov>: Sharay Dixon <sddixon@blm.gov>: Tiera Arbogast <tarbogast@blm.gov>: Brian McMullen <bmcmullen@blm.gov>: Gregory Russell <gregory.russell@sol.doi.gov>: Jolene Robertson <jtrobert@blm.gov>: Shiva Achet <sachet@blm.gov>: Elizabeth Carls <elizabeth.carls@sol.doi.gov>: Philip Lowe <philip.lowe@sol.doi.gov>: Veronica Larvie <veronica.larvie@sol.doi.gov>: Aaron Wilkerson <awilkers@blm.gov>: alden shallcross <ashallcross@blm.gov>: Bryce Bohn <bbohn@blm.gov>: Dale Stewart <d2stewar@blm.gov>: David M Herrell <dherrell@blm.gov>: Edward Rumbold <erumbold@blm.gov>: Jeremy Jarnecke <jjarnecke@blm.gov>: Jeremy Kruger <jkruger@blm.gov>: Kenneth Peck <kpeck@blm.gov>: Martin Griffith <martv griffith@blm.gov>: McKinley Ben Miller <mbmiller@blm.gov>: Michael Philbin <mphilbin@blm.gov>: Miyoshi Stith <mstith@blm.gov>: Peter Godfrey <pgodfrey@blm.gov>: Robert Boyd <rboyd@blm.gov>: Ronald McCormick <rmccormi@blm.gov>: Russell Scofield <ascofiel@blm.gov>: Sarah Peterson <sarahpeterson@blm.gov>: Sean MacDougall <smacdoug@blm.gov> Subject: Re: April ART Meeting How about the CEQ guidance that was rescinded in the Executive Order and how we are or aren't discussing climate change in our NEPA documents going forward. Charis A. Tuers Air Resource Specialist Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office (307) 775-6099 <b>ctuers@blm.gov On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Alexander, Theresa <talexander@blm.gov> wrote: Are there any agenda items for next week's ART meeting? If I do not get any "hot topics", I will cancel this month's meeting since most of the ARS, plus Jeremy & Jolene attended the two day Air Quality course workshop last week and everyone will be reviewing the SOW soon. Thank you. Theresa H. Alexander, MS, EIT BLM Washington, DC Air Resource Specialist U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Division of Environmental Quality and Protection 20 M Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 Office: (202) 912-7276 Cell: (202) 657-7216 E-mail: talexander@blm.gov Jeremy Kruger Soil, Water, Air Program Lead Bureau of Land Management Washington, DC 202-912-7137 (office) 202-527-4685 (cell) ikruger@blm.gov BLM's Landscape Aproach Alan Peck Soil, Water and Air Program Lead BLM State Office 222 W 7th Ave. #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Desk - (907) 271-4411 Cell - (907) 202-0796 Lisa Therese Christianson Surface Protection Reclamation Lead BLM, Southern Nevada District 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 "THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ORGANIZES OUR HIGHEST ORDER OF LIBERTY" ML Isaiah 40:31 Psalms 56:11 Theresa H. Alexander, MS, EIT BLM Washington, DC Air Resource Specialist U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Division of Environmental Quality and Protection 20 M Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 Office: (202) 912-7276 Cell: (202) 657-7216 E-mail: talexander@blm.gov Jeremy Kruger Soil, Water, Air Program Lead Bureau of Land Management Washington, DC 202-912-7137 (office) 202-527-4685 (cell) ikruger@blm.gov