American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2016 - 19

IndustryDigest
necessary properties" to the CCAA
policy. The changes will clarify the
standards to be met for approving a
CCAA, making enrollment easier for
interested nonfederal property owners,
they say.
The CCAA program seeks to
encourage the public to implement
specific conservation measures for
species prior to them being listed under
ESA, the agencies note. Property
owners receive assurances they will not
be required to take conservation
measures other than those to which they
already have agreed, even if new
information indicates the need, and they
will not be subject to additional
resource or land-use restrictions.
Under current policy, when
considering whether a property merits
inclusion in a CCAA, the agencies look
at the totality of properties on which
conservation measures will have to be
implemented to preclude the need for an
ESA listing. Although the agencies say
a property owner is proposing clearly
beneficial actions, current regulations
require "other necessary properties"
undertake additional actions that are
beyond his control for a CCAA to
remove the need to list a species.
"The confusion created by the
hypothetical concept of conservation
measures needing to be implemented on
'other necessary properties' is why we
are clarifying and revising the CCAA
standards to require a net conservation
benefit to the covered species
specifically on the property to be
enrolled, and eliminating references to
'other necessary properties,'" the
agencies state.
The revised document also adds a
new definition of net conservation
benefit, describing it as the total result
of specific conservation measures
designed to improve the status of a
covered species by removing or
minimizing threats, stabilizing
populations, and increasing its numbers.
The agencies say public comments
on the proposed revisions will be
accepted until July 5 through the federal
e-rulemaking portal at
www.regulations.gov. In the search
window, enter the docket number, FWSHQ-ES-2015-0171, click on the
Proposed Rules link to find the
document, and then click on the
Comment Now button. For information

about CCAAs, visit
http://1.usa.gov/1rI4iOL. ❒

SAB Affirms The EPA's
'No Impact' Conclusion
In Report On Fracturing
WASHINGTON-The Environmental
Protection Agency's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) has erased industry
concerns that it opposes the agency's
determination that hydraulic fracturing
does not pose widespread, systemic
threats to drinking water resources,
Energy in Depth reports.
In a blog posted April 29, EID
researcher Katie Brown notes that EPA's
draft Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil
and Gas on Drinking Water Resources,
which was released in June 2015,
concluded that fracturing had not "led
to widespread, systemic impacts on
drinking water resources."
However, a letter from SAB to EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy in
January expressed concern the
statement "was ambiguous . . . and
inconsistent with the observations"
(AOGR, February 2016, pg. 24).
But in its final review, which Brown
says was "posted quietly to (EPA's)
website late last month," SAB's
Hydraulic Fracturing Panel "does not
ask EPA to modify or eliminate its topline finding of 'no widespread, systemic
impacts.'"
The SAB's report does conclude the
phrase "does not clearly describe the
system(s) of interest (e.g., groundwater,
surface water), the scale of impacts (i.e.,
local or regional), nor the definitions of
'systemic' and 'widespread,'" Brown
quotes, adding that the SAB suggests
EPA "consider including modifying
adjectives before the words
'widespread, systemic impact.'"
But, Brown emphasizes, "The
important point is that while the SAB
panel makes some suggestions, it is not
asking the agency to change the phrase,
'no widespread, systemic impacts.' The
EPA's top-line finding stands."
Brown says Hydraulic Fracturing
Panel member Abby Li expressed
concern during a teleconference that the
public and media might have
misinterpreted SAB's draft assessment,
which she said was not intended to
undermine EPA's top-line finding.

Furthermore, Brown continues, four
panel members signed a dissenting
opinion that declared the top-line
finding provided "a holistic conclusion
of the life cycle process of water used
by the industry . . . is accurate,
unambiguous, and supportable with the
facts." ❒

Lawsuit Challenges
EPA's Science Review
WASHINGTON-The Energy &
Environment Legal Institute is
challenging the Environmental
Protection Agency's science advisory
process in a lawsuit that a spokesman
says could have a spillover effect for the
oil and gas industry.
On May 13, E&E Legal reports, it
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia that alleges
the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Particulate Matter
Review Panel was formed illegally.
CASAC is responsible for reviewing the
science underpinning EPA's PM2.5 air
quality standard for particulate matter
used in justifying ozone standards as
well as the agency's Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule, Mercury Air Transport
Standard, and Clean Power Plan,
according to E&E Legal.
Steve Milloy, a senior fellow with
E&E Legal and co-counsel on the
complaint, explains that while CASAC
is different from the EPA Science
Advisory Board panel that reviewed
EPA's draft Assessment of the Potential
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil
and Gas on Drinking Water Resources,
"they all work on the same principle.
EPA basically stacks panels such as
SAB and CASAC with people friendly
to its perspective."
It wasn't always that way, Milloy
points out. "Twenty years ago, these
panels were largely independent," he
says. "Now, EPA always makes sure the
committee has a majority of EPA
grantees-and the chairman is always an
EPA grantee-so it maintains control
over the whole thing.
"Not only does the EPA pay
researchers to produce controversial
research that advances its PM2.5
regulatory agenda, but the agency pays
the very same researchers to review
their own controversial work," he goes
on. "Of the 26 members EPA selected to
JUNE 2016 19
American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2016
