In reviewing the secret science rule, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana concluded that the «critical factor» a court must use to distinguish between a procedural rule and a substantive rule is whether the rule allows the agency to exercise its discretion on a case-by-case basis. [65] If a provision «narrowly restricts» this discretion or «establishes a binding rule», it is considered substantial. [66] In this case, in order to convince the court of the nature of the rule, the EPO repeated ad nauseam the words «purely procedural» and «applies only internally». [67] However, the Court saw clarity in this situation, noting that it did not distract from the «clear wording of the requirement» demonstrated by «should» as opposed to «may». [68] The EPA did not have the powers it wanted to delegate under the Federal Internal Economy Act and therefore could not escape greater accountability for its actions. The panel upheld the district court`s summary decision in favor of the federal defendant and the water districts intervening in action, and questioned an environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary of the Interior analyzing the impact of water transfer agreements on the Salton Sea in Southern California. Danika received her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2018 with a specialization in environmental law. During law school, she received the Leader in Sustainability Graduate Certificate and the Los Angeles Collaborative Sustainability Research Fellowship. She has been interested in the intersection of environment and agriculture and has published Soil Conservation in California: An Analysis of the Healthy Soils Initiative in the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. With dramatic photos of massive fires sweeping through human communities in the western United States and constantly decorating the news every summer, wildfires have become a hot topic in pop culture in recent years in the face of climate change. In contrast, the forest management community has long debated how best to manage fires safely and effectively in a way that protects human life and property while maintaining ecological stability in the forests of the western United States.
In the absence of a fully clarified solution, the recent decision of the Ninth Judicial District of Bark against the United States Forest Service (USFS) demonstrated the importance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in ensuring that the USFS at least fully and transparently considers all relevant factors in assessing the relationships between a forest management decision, forest fires and climate change. However, the Trump administration`s repeal of the 1978 NEPA regulations and the Obama administration`s 2016 final guidance for federal departments and agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects in national environmental policy laws (2016 GHG Guide) undermine federal agencies` commitments to consider climate change and opportunities. significant public participation in their environmental analyses of key federal actions. This chapter suggests that the Biden administration should re-enact NEPA regulations of 1978 and the 2016 GHG guidelines to help USFS better manage forests and fires to build adaptive resilience and better protect human and ecological communities over the long term. The chapter highlights elements of this policy that are particularly useful for managing fires in a climate-changing world, and suggests possible improvements to better empower USFS to make smart and informed decisions about forests, fires, and climate change. The committee partially rejected and partially denied a request to review the State of Nevada`s implementation plan for regional haze under the Clean Air Act. WildEarth Guardians, an environmental nonprofit, claimed that the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) was inadequate and that the EPA`s decision to approve it was arbitrary and capricious. [25] Email from Christopher C. Horner, Counsel, Bracewell & Patterson LLP to Timothy N.
Hyde, Managing Director of Pub. Issues, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Randy Tompson, Dir. of Pub. Issues, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (December 23, 1996, 13:56:01) (proposes a strategy to counter the EPA`s review of tobacco smoke in the environment), www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=jfww0019. In addition to increasing funding for experimental offshore wind projects, the DOE and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), with congressional support, could take more proactive steps to advance technological developments in floating turbines.
One such option would be to create a state-run floating turbine test site where universities, agencies such as NREL, and private developers can test a new floating turbine technology without having to jump through the hurdles of leasing and multi-year environmental assessment for each project. [63] This would create a kind of regulatory sandbox,[64] where developers could save money by selling their electricity onshore without having to install transmission infrastructure, while testing innovative floating wind turbine designs for later use in commercial wind farms. The court ordered the district court to issue an injunction sufficient to protect the status quo, while the U.S. Forest Service issued an additional environmental impact statement. In addition to increasing the overall energy potential of offshore wind, floating turbines offer several potential advantages over fixed ground wind turbines. Because winds farther from land are often stronger and more stable, floating turbines can provide more reliable power generation. [13] Floating turbines may also have lower construction costs, as some floating turbines can be built entirely in port and towed to their final location instead of being built on-site with specialized vessels. [14] Floating turbines may have less environmental impact at the facility site, as the cables used to hold the turbine in place nearby save fish and marine mammals from ramming damage required by fixed-bottom turbines.
[15] Finally, there may be less conflict with fishers, who are less likely to fish in these deeper waters, as well as with coastal landowners, who are less likely to see turbines from shore. [16] All of these potential benefits depend on the recognition by policymakers and developers that floating turbines are a viable technology that merits investment and regulatory attention.