Photo of Veronica Keithley

Veronica Keithley

Subscribe to Veronica Keithley's Posts

Veronica Keithley specializes in helping clients wade through the murky waters of environmental regulation for NPDES permitting, water quality, stormwater, wastewater, and wetlands. Having extensive skills in finding practical legal solutions to complex environmental matters, she advises clients on environmental permitting and regulatory compliance, and defends clients in enforcement proceedings and litigation, including citizen suits under the Clean Water Act.

Veronica works extensively with a wide range of clients in Washington and Alaska, including industrial, transportation, commodity, energy, and resource development companies, as well as ports and dam operators. She provides counsel on environmental issues related to operations, construction, and development projects, focusing on water issues.

Click here for Veronica Keithley's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Veronica KeithleyVeronica's Linkedin Profile

This post was co-authored by Beth Ginsberg & Krista McIntyre.

The U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) recently issued a memorandum stating that settlements, including consent decrees, entered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies can no longer include a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), unless the SEP is expressly authorized by Congress. Companies and individuals accused of violating environmental laws and permits, like Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permits, commonly agree to perform SEPs to fund projects that go beyond compliance instead of paying a higher cash penalty to the U.S. Treasury. Going forward, companies, individuals, and local governments will no longer have SEPs as a settlement option.

To support this policy reversal after more than 30 years, U.S. DOJ cites to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, which grants only Congress the authority to decide how to appropriate federal funds. The U.S. DOJ views SEPs as federal funds, and, in U.S. DOJ’s opinion, the EPA and other federal agencies lack the authority to divert those funds to third party recipients and to select the projects that should receive the funds. The power of the purse rests squarely with Congress. “[W]ith SEPs, money otherwise destined for the Treasury finds its way to another destination, not at the insistence of Congress, where the Constitution puts that authority, but instead at the insistence of an administrative agency, or a non-federal entity, or some combination thereof.”
Continue Reading Reversing 30-Year Policy, U.S. DOJ Says Settlements Can No Longer Include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a draft Multisector General Permit (MSGP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for stormwater discharges related to industrial activity. In Alaska, EPA has jurisdiction over NPDES permitting on federal property within Denali National Park, in federal waters (three miles or more offshore), and on certain …

Alaska is different—it has moose hunters on hovercrafts, many large national parks, and certain unique federal laws. Last week the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that National Park Service laws and regulations of general applicability do not apply to inholdings within Alaska’s national parks. Sturgeon v. Frost, 587 U.S. ___ (2019).

While on a moose hunting trip twelve years ago, John Sturgeon was repairing his hovercraft on a section of the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve (a unit of the National Park System) when park rangers ordered him to stop using the hovercraft in the preserve. Mr. Sturgeon left that day without the benefit of his hovercraft and without a moose. He later sued, arguing that the Park Service ban on hovercrafts did not apply to the Nation River, a navigable river the bed of which is owned by the State of Alaska.

This case arose under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). When the federal government designated national park lands in ANILCA, it swept tracts of nonfederal lands (state, Alaska Native corporation, and private inholdings) within the park boundaries. ANILCA provides that no state, Native, or private inholdings “shall be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within [conservation system] units.” 16 U.S.C. § 3103(c). Nonetheless, the federal government claimed that the Park Service could regulate the inholdings like park lands.
Continue Reading National Park Service Regulations Do Not Apply to Inholdings in Alaska

The Alaska DNR is requesting public comments on its mining regulations for establishing and maintaining mining claims – 11 AAC Chapter 86. These regulations (as well as related regulations at 11 AAC 82 and 11 AAC 88) establish or address many of the requirements for locating claims on state lands, performing assessment work, paying rent,…

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.