02.25.16

Lawmakers spar over meaning of words in mitigation memo

What exactly is an "irreplaceable" natural resource?

The answer could have major implications for future developments that affect public lands, waters or wildlife, House Republicans argued during a hearing yesterday.

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations scrutinized a presidential memorandum issued late last year that called on the secretaries of Defense, the Interior and Agriculture and the administrators of U.S. EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to streamline their agencies' regulations for offsetting environmental harm and to promote independent mitigation efforts.

The memo, which established a first-ever "net benefit goal" for natural resource use, also said agencies should recognize some resources as "of such irreplaceable character that minimization and compensation measures, while potentially practicable, may not be adequate or appropriate" (Greenwire, Nov. 3, 2015).

That provision was particularly concerning to Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), who wanted to know if the administration would try to block the mining or drilling of federal minerals by declaring them "irreplaceable."

"Congressman, I am not going to get into all of the definitions of 'irreplaceable,'" responded Christy Goldfuss, managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

She repeatedly emphasized that the memo was not legally binding and was only intended as a guide to implementing agencies' existing laws.

Michael Bean, the Department of the Interior's principal deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, added that the Fish and Wildlife Service's 35-year-old policy on mitigation included the term, which had been applied to "relatively few resources."

But the administration officials' explanations did little to assuage Republican committee members. "You can define it any way you want, and then I can define any way that I want," said Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho).

"It's up to us, as members of Congress to, define these terms," he added. "The people elected us, not you."

Labrador then asked Brian Ferebee, the Forest Service's associate deputy chief for the National Forest System, and the other administration officials to provide a list of instances where "irreplaceable" is used in agencies' statutes. He requested similar citations for the terms "important," "scarce" and "sensitive," which were also in the memo.

Democrats, on the other hand, defended the document as nothing more than an attempt to codify existing policy. They said it would bolster conservation while making project development on all types of federal lands clearer.

Ranking member Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) submitted letters of support from dozens of environmental groups into the hearing record. She also made light of Republicans' semantic objections to the memo.

"Much of the criticism that we've heard about the memo is that it's vague. I feel like if it was specific, you can bet we'd hear the criticism that it's too prescriptive," Dingell said. "It's sort of, if Obama sinks, he's a witch. If he floats, he's a witch."

Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the chairman of the full committee, also used the hearing to press Goldfuss on the administration's land conservation intentions in his state.

Last month, he released a long-awaited proposal to permanently protect the 1.2-million-acre Bears Ears National Conservation Area as wilderness, create vast motorized recreation areas, and expedite the development of oil, gas and minerals in an area of eastern Utah (E&E Daily, Jan. 20).

"Is [the Council on Environmental Quality] actively working on a national monument proposal for Bears Ears?" Bishop asked.

Goldfuss replied that "I cannot talk about any specific proposals that we're working on out of CEQ or out of the administration with regard to national monuments." But she promised to sit down with the chairman soon to discuss his legislation.


By:  Corbin Hiar
Source: E&E News