CEQ Guidance Comment Period

Since we spend some quality time on this blog talking about NEPA, you might be interested in commenting on this draft CEQ guidance. the climate change and mitigation and monitoring might be particularly relevant to our discussion, since the draft guidance seems to extend the NEPA regs to past implementation of the decision. Here are some questions relevant to federal land management, and the bolded ones seem to have to do with LMPs:

CEQ also requests comment on land and resource management issues, including:
1. How should NEPA documents regarding long-range energy and resource management programs assess GHG emissions and climate change impacts?2. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for projects applicable to the federal land management agencies?
3. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for land management planning applicable to the federal land management agencies?4. Should CEQ recommend any particular protocols for assessing land management practices and their effect on carbon release and sequestration?
5. How should uncertainties associated with climate change projections and species and ecosystem responses be addressed in protocols for assessing land management practices?
6. How should NEPA analyses be tailored to address the beneficial effects on GHG emissions of Federal land and resource management actions?
7. Should CEQ provide guidance to agencies on determining whether GHG emissions are “significant” for NEPA purposes. At what level should GHG emissions be considered to have significant cumulative effects. In this context, commenters may wish to consider the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007).

Here’s the link.

New CEQ NEPA Guidance In conjunction with NEPA’s 40th Anniversary Celebration, CEQ is publishing three draft NEPA guidance documents for review and comment. Below are links to the draft guidance documents and instructions for submitting comments:

– ESTABLISHING AND APPLYING CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

Comments are due 45 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.

Submit Comments to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/nepa

– MITIGATION AND MONITORING

Comments are due 90 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.

Submit Comments to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/nepa

– CONSIDERING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Comments are due 90 days after publication of the Federal Register notice.

Submit Comments to http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/initiatives/nepa

Additional information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives

2 thoughts on “CEQ Guidance Comment Period”

  1. Here’s a note I just got from Andy Kratz, our Regional Botanist:
    FYI. This looks to me like it could turn out to be significant for our agency (bold added to aid skimming):

    CEQ is seeking comment on the draft guidance attached below. At the end of the document, they pose several questions for which they are seeking feedback from the public, including:
    2. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for projects applicable to the federal land management agencies?
    3. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for land management planning applicable to the federal land management agencies?
    5. How should uncertainties associated with climate change projections and species and ecosystem responses be addressed in protocols for assessing land management practices?

    Various phrases or sentences caught my eye as I skimmed through the 12-page document:

    “Examples of proposals for Federal agency action that may warrant a discussion of the GHG impacts of various alternatives, as well as possible measures to mitigate climate change impacts, include: …authorization of a methane venting coal mine.” (I don’t know if authorization of livestock grazing and the associated methane emissions would be another example.)

    “Federal programs that affect emissions or sinks and proposals regarding long range energy, transportation, and resource management programs lend themselves to a programmatic approach.” (Is this relevant to our transportation planning efforts?)

    “agency compliance with requirements for Federal agencies to implement sustainable practices for energy efficiency, GHG emissions avoidance or reduction, petroleum products use reduction, and renewable energy, including bioenergy as well as other required sustainable practices”

    “planning for carbon capture and sequestration” (Does this include reforestation?)

    “Climate change can increase the vulnerability of a resource, ecosystem, or human community, causing a proposed action to result in consequences that are more damaging than prior experience with environmental impacts analysis might indicate. For example, an industrial process may draw cumulatively significant amounts of water from a stream that is dwindling because of decreased snow pack in the mountains or add significant heat to a water body that is exposed to increasing atmospheric temperatures.”

    “For example, if a proposed project requires the use of significant quantities of water, changes in water availability associated with climate change may need to be discussed in greater detail than other consequences of climate change.”

    “In cases where adaptation to the effects of climate change is important, the significant aspects of these changes should be identified in the agency’s final decision and adoption of a monitoring program should be considered.”

    Reply
  2. Or climate change may cause more demand for water, which may cause us to get more permits to build and add to capacity for dams.. it can work both ways. But hopefully does not simply provide a new platform (and pages of analysis and hours of time) to debate the same old disagreements about what should be done.

    Reply

Leave a Comment