Permitting

Subscribe to Permitting via RSS

Major infrastructure developers received a notable holiday gift from Capitol Hill and the White House earlier this month with the December 4, 2015 enactment of the Highway Authorization Act. Title XLI of the Act promises to streamline both the authorization (license, permit, approval, etc.) and environmental review processes for covered projects.

Who Benefits?

To benefit from the Act’s streamlined process, an infrastructure project must (1) fall within a covered project category, (2) be subject to NEPA, (3) be likely to require a total investment of more than $200,000,000, and (4) not qualify for abbreviated authorization or environmental review under another statute. Covered project categories include:

  • Renewable or conventional energy production
  • Electricity transmission
  • Surface transportation
  • Aviation
  • Ports and waterways
  • Water resource projects not already covered under the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348)
  • Broadband
  • Pipelines
  • Manufacturing

Continue Reading New Law Streamlines Federal Permitting and Environmental Review Processes

Late yesterday, Judge Scott Skavdahl of the federal district court in Wyoming issued a much-anticipated order granting a series of preliminary injunction motions filed in litigation challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands.  (Our full coverage of the litigation is available here.)  In a detailed 54-page…

In June, a Wyoming federal district court temporarily delayed implementation of the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) new final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal public lands, while it granted the BLM an extension to lodge its administrative record and permitted the parties more time to file citations to that record in support of their…

Following a court hearing and order temporarily delaying the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal public lands, the BLM submitted its response brief opposing the Ute Indian Tribe’s preliminary injunction motion on July 1.  Among the BLM’s arguments, it asserted four primary points:

  • First, the BLM contends that the

…

On the heels of yesterday’s day-long hearing on several preliminary injunction motions in litigation challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (“BLM”) new final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal public lands, the Wyoming district court has temporarily ordered a delay of the rule’s implementation for at least several weeks. (See our prior coverage of the…

Several more key filings have come into the federal litigation challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands in advance of the June 23 consolidated preliminary injunction hearing. These briefs are summarized below:

BLM’s Opposition To The Preliminary Injunction Motions Filed By The States Of Wyoming And Colorado…

Since our last update on federal litigation in Wyoming challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands, the flurry of activity continues in advance of the June 23 preliminary injunction hearing. We’ve summarized several key filings below:

BLM’s Opposition To Preliminary Injunction

On June 1, the BLM filed its brief opposing the preliminary injunction motion entered by the two industry group plaintiffs—the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance. The BLM primarily focuses on two arguments.

First, the BLM contends the industry groups are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their litigation against the rule, and, as a result, a preliminary injunction is unwarranted. In support of its position, the BLM argues:

  • It developed the final rule in accordance with appropriate statutes, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which grants the BLM authority to administer public lands and resources.
  • The industry can comply with certification requirements, such as the temporary recovered fluid storage requirement, by invoking trade secret protection under the BLM’s existing regulations.
  • The final rule is justified and necessary to address modern technological advances and changes in hydraulic fracturing industry.
  • The industry groups failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, since there is no imminent risk of disclosure of confidential information.

The BLM also maintained that the public interest would not favor a preliminary injunction, because entering one would deny the BLM tools to prevent environmental harm, including putative groundwater contamination. And, according to the BLM’s arguments, an injunction would detrimentally affect the orderly administration of federal energy policy, causing confusion among the public and the industry as to whether and when its final fracking rule would become effective.Continue Reading Preliminary Injunction Arguments Pour Into Litigation Against BLM’s Final Fracking Rule

On the heels of a preliminary injunction motion filed in the action by two industry groups challenging the federal Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on public lands, the states of Wyoming and Colorado likewise filed a preliminary injunction motion in their related case last Friday.

In their brief, the…

Less than one week after the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its Final Rule governing hydraulic fracturing practices on federal lands, North Dakota will proceed to explore the state’s legal options for challenging the new regulations.  At their March 24 meeting, the members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission—comprised of Governor Jack Dalrymple,…

About the Mineral Law Blog

Learn More

Here Stoel Rives shares insight and analysis about key mineral law developments. Drawing on a very active natural resources practice, we aim to keep readers informed about the legal aspects of news that impacts exploration and development of all things mineral.