{"id":14166,"date":"2018-06-25T15:00:23","date_gmt":"2018-06-25T19:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=14166"},"modified":"2018-06-25T15:00:23","modified_gmt":"2018-06-25T19:00:23","slug":"policy-news-june-25-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2018\/06\/25\/policy-news-june-25-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News: June 25, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

ESA Policy News<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In This Issue:<\/h1>\n

ESA and USGS Hold Capitol Hill Roundtable on Science in the Chesapeake Bay<\/u><\/b><\/a>
\nESA and the U.S. Geological Survey held a roundtable discussion highlighting science used to inform Chesapeake Bay restoration and management.<\/p>\n

Senate Appropriations\u00a0Committee Introduces Bills to Fund Interior Agencies, NSF and Others\u00a0<\/b><\/u><\/a>
\nSenate releases its proposal for agency funding.<\/p>\n

Trump Oceans Policy Upends Eight Years of Sound Stewardship\u00a0<\/u><\/b><\/a>
\nTrump issues executive order rescinding previous National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan.<\/p>\n

Administration\u00a0Takes Aim at NEPA: Significant Changes, Little Time to Object\u00a0<\/u><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

The White House Council on Environmental Quality\u00a0submitted an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the National Environmental Policy Act to the Federal Register.<\/p>\n

Quick Reads<\/u><\/b><\/a>
\nEPA and Army Corps of Engineers send revised WOTUS rule to the White House, USGS restricts employees\u2019 conference attendance.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/u><\/a><\/strong>
\nHouse Budget Committee releases budget plan; lawmakers propose fees for states that reject offshore drilling and legislative updates.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/a><\/u><\/strong>
\nTrump nominates CEQ Chair, EPA releases list of Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee nominees and more.<\/p>\n

Courts<\/u><\/a><\/strong>
\nCourt blocks WOTUS rule in 13 states, Supreme Court upholds ruling requiring Washington state to remove culverts to protect salmon.<\/p>\n

States<\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Hawaii bans harmful pesticide, Michigan legislature passes bill to loosen ballast water regulations.<\/p>\n

Scientific Community<\/a><\/u><\/strong>
\nNational Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine releases report on sexual harassment.<\/p>\n

Federal Register Opportunities<\/u><\/a><\/strong>
\nUpcoming meetings and other opportunities for public involvement.<\/p>\n

Register to Vote<\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

2018 midterm elections are happening in November.\u00a0\u00a0Register to vote and learn more about voting policies and rights in your state at Rock the Vote.<\/a><\/p>\n

ESA In the News <\/u><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

View an up-to-date list of ESA\u2019s media coverage<\/p>\n

ESA Correspondence to Policymakers <\/u><\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

ESA and USGS Hold a Capitol Hill Roundtable on Science in the Chesapeake Bay<\/h2>\n

On June 19, 2018, ESA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held a Capitol Hill roundtable discussion hosted by Congressmen Rob Wittman (R-VA) and John Sarbanes (D-MD) highlighting science used to inform Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. Bipartisan staffers and policymakers crowded into a conference room on Capitol Hill to hear scientists talk about the USGS\u2019s role in providing and coordinating science in Chesapeake Bay watershed ecosystem. Nicole Zimmerman, public affairs officer, penned a blog about the event that was published in the Ecotone<\/a> blog.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Senate Appropriations Committee Introduces Bills to Fund Interior Agencies, NSF and others<\/h2>\n

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed Interior and Environment and Commerce, Justice and Science spending bills the week of June 11. This is the beginning of the lengthy congressional appropriations process to pass the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 bills that fund the federal government from Oct. 1, 2018-Sept. 30, 2019. The appropriations bills will likely change before they pass the full House and Senate and become law, but they are important because they signal the intent of Congress.<\/p>\n

Interior, EPA and Forest Service<\/strong><\/p>\n

Senate appropriation bill funding levels for the Interior Department agencies largely remain flat and contain similar spending levels as the House appropriations bill. The Interior receives 13.1 billion in total. The U.S. Geological Survey\u2019s budget remains flat at $1.148 billion. The National Park Service receives a $13.4 million increase over FY 2018 levels, bringing the agency\u2019s budget to $3.21 billion. Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management receives $1.34 billion, an increase of $11 million over FY 2018 levels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service receives a $19.7 million cut, bringing the USFWS\u2019 budget to $1.57 billion. The Senate bill also includes $14 million for Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke\u2019s proposed Interior reorganization.<\/p>\n

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also receives flat funding of $8.058 billion.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Forest Service receives $6.29 billion, including $349 million in increased funding for wildland fire management. Without the wildland fire management account, the agency receives a $14.48 million increase. The Forest Service\u2019s Research and Development program receives $300 million, a $3 million increase over FY 2018 levels.<\/p>\n

The Senate bill does not include any new policy riders, but it does includes policy riders from previous appropriations bills, including a ban on listing the greater-sage grouse as an endangered species.<\/p>\n

NSF, NOAA, NASA<\/strong><\/p>\n

The National Science Foundation receives $8.1 billion, $301 million above the FY 2018 level. This includes $6.485 for NSF\u2019s research and related activities account \u2013 a 4 percent increase, this include the Biological Science Directorate. The bill also provides $95 million to update research facilities at McMurdo Station in Antarctica and and $89.2 million for three Regional Class Research Vessels.<\/p>\n

NASA receives $21.3 billion total, an increase of $587 million. The agency\u2019s science program receive an increase of $179 million to $6.4 billion and funding for the Earth Science division remains flat at $1.9 billion. The bill also includes $10 million for NASA\u2019s Carbon Monitoring System, which the Trump administration attempted to cancel earlier this year. The Senate bill also explicitly funds several Earth Science programs that the Trump administration has proposed eliminating in its budget requests \u2013 these programs include the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud Ocean Ecosystem mission (PACE), the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 instrument (OCO-3) and earth-facing instruments on the Deep Space Climate Observatory.<\/p>\n

NOAA receives $5.48 billion, a $426 billion decrease from FY 2018. The agency receives $508 million for climate, weather and ocean research. NOAA cuts largely come from a decrease in spending for weather satellite procurement and the completion of the acquisition of a Hurricane Hunter aircraft.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Trump Oceans Policy Upends Eight Years of Sound Stewardship<\/h2>\n

On Tuesday June 19, President Trump revoked the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, which was set into place after the environmental devastation resulting from the 87-day Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The new policy<\/a> essentially overturns every goal of the old: marine conservation, climate change, and stewardship are replaced with supporting ocean industries, oil exploration, and more economically productive uses.<\/p>\n

The Policy Enacted Due to Deepwater<\/strong><\/p>\n

The opening sentences of Obama\u2019s July 2010 order said, \u201cThe Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and resulting environmental crisis is a stark reminder of how vulnerable our marine environments are, and how much communities and the nation rely on healthy and resilient ocean and coastal ecosystems.\u201d<\/p>\n

As stated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the former administration\u2019s policy outlined, \u201cThe National Ocean Policy sets forth a vision of an America whose stewardship ensures that the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes are healthy and resilient, safe and productive, and understood and treasured so as to promote the well-being, prosperity, and security of present and future generations.\u201d The plan addressed the ocean\u2019s contribution to the economy; its safety and security; the importance of local choices, applicable science and information; and a framework for effective planning and management.<\/p>\n

The new Trump policy drops those ideas. It opts for calling for federal agencies to coordinate on providing \u201ceconomic, security, and environmental benefits for present and future generations of Americans,\u201d and then highlights the need to \u201cpromote the lawful use of the ocean by agencies, including [the]\u00a0United States Armed Forces.\u201d It also prioritizes economic growth of coastal communities, promotes ocean industries, advances ocean science and technology in order to \u201cenhance America\u2019s energy security.\u201d Obama\u2019s overarching approach of \u201cstewardship\u201d towards the ocean is also eliminated in the new Trump policy \u2013 the word does not appear in the 1,500-word order.<\/p>\n

As reported by The Hill, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, stated, \u201cToday\u2019s announcement of President Trump repealing and replacing the bureaucratic, overreaching policy created under the previous administration puts our country\u2019s ocean policy back on the right track.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, conservation groups decried the move. \u201cWith the action today eliminating the National Ocean Policy, President Trump is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for the real and urgent threats facing America\u2019s coastal communities \u2013 namely, the impacts of climate change,\u201d said Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environment at the Center for American Progress. The Natural Resources Defense Council offered a more blunt perspective, calling\u00a0Trump\u2019s\u00a0order \u201can irresponsible move.\u201d NRDC\u2019s policy analyst Alison Chase, elaborated that under the old framework, \u201cStates from Maine to Virginia crafted plans over several years, together with regional fisheries managers, tribes and federal agencies \u2013 with extensive industry and public involvement,\u201d Chase said.\u00a0\u201cThere is no longer a requirement to work with states to provide for coordinated ocean protection, and there is no longer a national policy to promote healthy ocean ecosystems.\u201d
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Administration Takes Aim at NEPA: Significant Changes, Little Time to Object<\/h2>\n

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) submitted an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the Federal Register June 20. NEPA reviews\u00a0are used to determine the environmental impact of major infrastructure projects including oil and gas pipelines. This notice seeks public comments \u201con potential revisions to update the regulations and ensure a more efficient, timely, and effective NEPA process consistent with the national environmental policy stated in NEPA.\u201d CEQ regulations carry great weight and influence all of the government\u2019s agencies approach to administering NEPA.<\/p>\n

The deadline to submit comments is July 20, 2018, leaving scant time for public input. NEPA was signed into law by President Richard Nixon Jan. 1, 1970, and has served as a foundational bedrock for the environment since its passage. Its impact is global with more than 100 nations around the world using NEPA to design their national environmental policies. NEPA serves to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies by providing \u201cdetailed information concerning significant environmental impacts\u201d available to the public and agency leaders.<\/p>\n

This latest ANPR is consistent with the administration\u2019s push to \u2018streamline\u2019 the NEPA process, driven by President Trump\u2019s August 2017 Executive Order 13807<\/a>. That EO seeks to \u201cenhance and modernize\u201d the environmental review and permitting process for infrastructure. It is the most recent action taken by the administration to weaken the NEPA law throughout the federal government.<\/p>\n

To comply with EO 13807, CEQ issued a joint memorandum of understanding<\/a> (MOU) in April 2018 with the White House Office of Management and Budget to expedite federal review and permitting of the\u00a0projects. Twelve agencies signed the MOU to coordinate their environmental review of projects including the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\u00a0This MOU calls for agencies to follow permitting timetables designed to complete such reviews within two years. It states there will be one federal agency as part of the MOU\u2019s \u201cOne Federal Decision\u201d framework to act as the lead agency for an infrastructure project throughout the whole federal environmental review and permitting process for projects requiring a NEPA review.<\/p>\n

In a related measure to weaken NEPA, lawmakers considered H.R. 6106<\/a>, \u201cthe Common Sense Permitting Act.\u201d Members passed it out of the House Natural Resources Committee on a 22-18 vote along party lines June 20. Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) introduced the bill, but its progress in the House is uncertain. This resolution is latest of 60 bills introduced by Congress this year to weaken NEPA.<\/p>\n

Broad Questions with a Narrow Timeline for Comment<\/u><\/p>\n

CEQ seeks comments on 20 specific questions that fall broadly into three categories: (1) NEPA Process, (2) Scope of NEPA Review, and (3) General. The notice further invites commenters to provide \u201cspecific recommendations on additions, deletions, and modifications to the text of CEQ\u2019s NEPA regulations,\u201d including their justifications, to update and clarify the regulations. For example, many of the questions presented revolve around legal terms, which have been litigated for decades to define their scope. For example, CEQ is suggesting terms such as, \u201cmajor federal action,\u201d \u201cscope,\u201d \u201ccumulative impact,\u201d and \u201csignificantly,\u201d should be redefined.<\/p>\n

Although the CEQ rule-making proposal lays out sweeping questions about the scope of NEPA, it allows only 30 days for comment. As reported by E&E News, environmentalists are already saying a monthlong comment period is too short. \u201cThere\u2019s no question that this is causing outrage,\u201d said Raul Garcia, legislative counsel at Earthjustice. \u201cThe fact that it\u2019s only a 30-day public comment period really shows that they\u2019re not taking it seriously.\u201d He went on to say, \u201cThe administration just wants to go fast, even if it means driving off a cliff.\u201d<\/p>\n

Comments about the ANPR for NEPA can be submitted via the Federal Register<\/a><\/u>, and the deadline for commenting is July 20, 2018.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Quick Reads<\/h2>\n

WOTUS<\/strong>:\u00a0The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers announced<\/a> June 15 that they have sent a revised version of the \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d (WOTUS) rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. The agencies did not provide further details on the WOTUS rule and said that the proposal would\u00a0be available for public review and comment once OMB has completed its review.<\/p>\n

In the courts, a federal judge in Georgia\u00a0blocked<\/a> the implementation of the WOTUS rule in 13 states \u2013 Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Kentucky. With this ruling, the WOTUS rule has been halted in 24 states. The judge, Lisa Godbey Wood, ruled that that allowing WOTUS to take effect would irreparably hurt states; sovereignty and that the rule was inconsistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s 2006 Rapanos v. United States case, which ruled that federal agencies have jurisdiction over waters with a \u2018significant nexus\u2019 to navigable rivers and seas.<\/p>\n

USGS<\/strong>: Internal documents obtained<\/a> by The Washington Post show that U.S. Geological Survey employees now must provide their presentation titles and identify how their research relates to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke\u2019s priorities when applying for approval to attend the annual meetings of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Geological Society of America. Last year, only 178 USGS employees \u2013 about half of the usual amount \u2013 were able to attend AGU\u2019s 2017 annual meeting. In a similar vein, a separate report<\/a> from the Los Angeles Times reports that USGS scientists now must get permission from the Department of Interior press office before speaking to media on scientific matters.<\/p>\n

Forest Service<\/strong>: The Forest Service\u2019s Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Research Stations have published the final Northwest Forest Plan Science (NWFP) science synthesis<\/a> June 11. This report aims to tie together scientific developments relevant to managing forests in the Pacific Northwest since the Northwest Forest Plan was created to protect old growth forests and spotted owl habitat in the 1990s. The science synthesis will provide a scientific foundation for forest plan revisions in western Oregon, western Washington and northern California. The ESA Science Office facilitated an independent peer review of this report and ESA members contributed as co-authors. The research stations will hold a forum on the science synthesis June 26 in Portland, OR \u2013 a remote connection will be available.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Congress<\/h2>\n

Rescissions: <\/strong>The Senate failed to pass a $15 billion recission package proposed by the White House June 20. All 48 Democrats and two Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) voted against the package. Burr refused to support the bill after Senate leaders refused to hold a vote on an amendment to remove a $16 million cut from Forest Service Land and Water Conservation Fund projects.<\/p>\n

Farm Bill:<\/strong> The House narrowly voted to approve its version of the 2018 Farm Bill (H.R. 2<\/a>) June 21. The House\u2019s farm bill elimates the Conservation Stewardship Program and reduces funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. House lawmakers also included new \u2018categorical exclusions\u2019 from the National Environmental Policy Act for forest thinning projects on federal lands and restrictions on the amount of consultation the US Forest Service must do with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on forest management projects. Another amendment excludes national forests in Alaska from the \u201croadless rule\u201d that limits logging in roadless areas of national forests.<\/p>\n

The Senate Agriculture Committee introduced and approved its version of the Farm Bill (S. 3080<\/a>). Both the House and Senate bills boost the acreage caps for the Conservation Reserve Program, but by different amounts. The Senate bill expands the sodsaver program, which limits crop insurance subsidies for lands converted to crops from native grasslands. Both chambers of Congress hope to pass a farm bill by July 11.<\/p>\n

Budget<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/strong>The House Budget Committee released its draft Fiscal Year 2019 budget blueprint<\/a>. The plan sets overall levels for government spending and proposes reducing federal government spending from $597 billion in FY 2019 to $555 billion by FY 2028. House Republicans also propose selling 100 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and call on the House Natural Resources Committee to find $5 billion in budget savings.<\/p>\n

Offshore Drilling<\/strong>: <\/strong>House Republicans have proposed<\/a> imposing fees on states that reject offshore drilling on their coasts. Under the legislation discussed by the House Natural Resources Committee, states that put more than 50 percent of their shoreline off-limits would be required to pay a fee of one-tenth of the revenue that the government would receive for oil and gas drilling in the area.<\/p>\n

Climate Research:<\/strong> Four Republican Senators \u2013 Sen. Ted Crux (R-TX), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) \u2013 sent a letter<\/a> to the NSF inspector general asking the IG to investigate some NSF grants that they allege support a political agenda and may violate the Hatch Act. The law prohibits federal agencies and employees from participating in political activities. One of the projects highlighted in the letter investigates the ways that TV meteorologists communicate climate science.<\/p>\n

Other legislative updates of interest:<\/strong><\/p>\n