Maryland Transportation Authority’s Post

I've been thinking a lot about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amendment Paul Scully introduced into Parliament last week to provide clarity on State Significant Development (SSD) assessments. Quite specific pondering I know, however his proposed solution to the huge amounts of uncertainty arising out of the NSW Court of Appeal's decision in Bingham Catchment Landcare Group Inc v Bowdens Silver Pty Ltd is simple. By way of background: Bingham Catchment Landcare Group challenged an IPC decision to grant development consent to a silver mine on the basis that the IPC hadn't considered the impact of transmission infrastructure needed for the mine because it was part of a 'single proposed development' even though the transmission infrastructure wasn't part of the mine's SSD application for a number of reasons. Initially the Land and Environment Court found that the IPC didn't need to consider the transmission infrastructure as part of a 'single proposed development', but on appeal the Court of Appeal said it did because it was. It is very common for ancillary/enabling infrastructure for an SSD project - e.g. transmission lines needed to power a silver mine - to be assessed under a different assessment pathway (if it needs development consent at all). But the Court of Appeal's decision threw this into uncertainty because it said that the transmission infrastructure was 'integral' and had a 'real and sufficient link' to the mine and therefore was part of a 'single proposed development'. Unhelpfully, the Court of Appeal didn't provide any guidance as to when ancillary/enabling infrastructure is 'integral' and has a 'real and sufficient link' to the SSD project. This opened the possibility that other SSD applications in the pipeline may need to include their ancillary/enabling infrastructure as a single development for assessment. And projects already granted SSD development consent may have had those decisions opened to include ancillary/enabling infrastructure. Minister Scully's proposed solution in the Bill is to include a provision in the EP&A Act to allow the Planning Secretary to decide whether ancillary/enabling infrastructure is part of a single development or not. And the proposed amendments crucially include a range of guidance in the Regulations for how the Secretary will make these determinations and what the consultation process will be. And yes, there are transitional provisions. All up I think this is a straightforward response. Undoubtedly there will be some who see risk, however the intention here isn't to make the planning process more complicated for the renewable energy transition and the Minister's second reading speech says as much. The NSW government has done a lot in recent times to make its planning framework clearer and more straightforward for the renewable energy transition, including via the soon-to-be-released Energy Policy Framework. Let's see if it passes later this week.

Innovation in regulatory compliance is key to driving efficiency and sustainability. PHMSA's leadership in accelerating methane leak detection and repair projects, supported by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is a significant step toward a safer and greener future. At Spark Thought, we’re dedicated to helping organizations navigate these evolving regulatory landscapes to achieve operational excellence. - #RegulatoryCompliance #Sustainability #MethaneReduction #OperationsExcellence #EnergySector #InfrastructureInnovation

As a former SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER( ENGINEERING) for the Ministry of the Environment, speeding up environmental assessments and land acquisition by expropriation for projects is a serious matter that is unacceptable under the intent of the original Environmental Assessment act and can have very serious consequences for the land owners involved and the environment in general.

Learn the key steps of remediation in construction, addressing contaminants, and compliance in Florida. Call EPAC Environmental Services Inc. for expert solutions.

Insights into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) https://lnkd.in/gN6KaxU7

The State of Florida's Federal 404 of the Clean Water Act Program plays a vital role in overseeing dredge and fill activities within state waters, encompassing a wide range of projects from residential to environmental restoration endeavors. On February 15, 2024; a federal court order was issued for the temporary rescinding of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)'s authority to issue Federal Section 404 permits. The State of Florida 404 Program; was implemented in 2020, which gave FDEP authority to assume the federal dredge and fill permitting program in Florida from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The FDEP assumed responsibility for overseeing permitting for any project proposing dredge or fill activities within state assumed waters. Such projects include, single family residences; commercial developments; utility projects; environmental restoration and enhancement projects; linear transportation projects; governmental development; certain agricultural and silvicultural activities; and in-water work within assumed freshwater bodies such as boat ramps, living shorelines and other shoreline stabilization.   Approximately 85% of review requirements overlapped between State Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Federal CWA 404 permits, which eliminated duplicative review and thus, streamlined the process.   However, unexpectedly, on February 15, 2024; a federal court order was issued, stripping FDEP of its authority to issue State 404 permits in Florida. Consequently, all activity under the State 404 Program is paused until further order of the court; thus, disrupting hundreds of permit applications, including those associated with the restoration of the Everglades and critical infrastructure projects.   FDEP is currently pursuing legal options in light of the court’s order. As an initial step to limit this disruption, FDEP filed a motion seeking a partial stay so Florida may continue to process the applications that would not affect any listed species.   On March 21, 2024; the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act” (H.R. 7023), which includes an amendment by U.S. Representative Aaron Bean (FL-4) that would codify the U.S. EPA’s approval of Florida’s Section 404 Program. This act signifies federal recognition and potential support for the state's permitting authority. Therefore, efforts to address this issue are underway, with the FDEP exploring legal options to continue processing certain permit applications. The evolving landscape of environmental regulations and permitting underscores the need for ongoing collaboration between state and federal entities to ensure effective protection of natural resources while enabling responsible economic growth. Despite the current disruption, the program remains essential for maintaining environmental integrity and facilitating sustainable development in Florida.

The State of Florida's Federal 404 of the Clean Water Act Program plays a vital role in overseeing dredge and fill activities within state waters, encompassing a wide range of projects from residential to environmental restoration endeavors. On February 15, 2024; a federal court order was issued for the temporary rescinding of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)'s authority to issue Federal Section 404 permits. The State of Florida 404 Program; was implemented in 2020, which gave FDEP authority to assume the federal dredge and fill permitting program in Florida from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The FDEP assumed responsibility for overseeing permitting for any project proposing dredge or fill activities within state assumed waters. Such projects include, single family residences; commercial developments; utility projects; environmental restoration and enhancement projects; linear transportation projects; governmental development; certain agricultural and silvicultural activities; and in-water work within assumed freshwater bodies such as boat ramps, living shorelines and other shoreline stabilization.   Approximately 85% of review requirements overlapped between State Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Federal CWA 404 permits, which eliminated duplicative review and thus, streamlined the process.   However, unexpectedly, on February 15, 2024; a federal court order was issued, stripping FDEP of its authority to issue State 404 permits in Florida. Consequently, all activity under the State 404 Program is paused until further order of the court; thus, disrupting hundreds of permit applications, including those associated with the restoration of the Everglades and critical infrastructure projects.   FDEP is currently pursuing legal options in light of the court’s order. As an initial step to limit this disruption, FDEP filed a motion seeking a partial stay so Florida may continue to process the applications that would not affect any listed species.   On March 21, 2024; the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act” (H.R. 7023), which includes an amendment by U.S. Representative Aaron Bean (FL-4) that would codify the U.S. EPA’s approval of Florida’s Section 404 Program. This act signifies federal recognition and potential support for the state's permitting authority. Therefore, efforts to address this issue are underway, with the FDEP exploring legal options to continue processing certain permit applications. The evolving landscape of environmental regulations and permitting underscores the need for ongoing collaboration between state and federal entities to ensure effective protection of natural resources while enabling responsible economic growth. Despite the current disruption, the program remains essential for maintaining environmental integrity and facilitating sustainable development in Florida.

Minnesota’s time-consuming process for environmental permitting is giving corporate decision-makers pause as they think about where to build, expand and invest — and it’s costing the state big-time, according to a new report from the Minnesota Chamber Foundation. #MNEconomy #MNconstruction #BusinessDevelopment

Council on Environmental Quality finalized the Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule, which is Phase 2 of its revisions to NEPA Implementing Regulations. The rule removed several components of the 2020 NEPA rule, including restrictions on public commenting and provisions curtailing judicial review. It also institutes reforms meant to streamline permitting, including providing one- and two-year environmental review deadlines and identifying lead federal agencies. https://lnkd.in/gm5xtQyb

“The permitting conundrum …” A perplexing challenge arises when regulators and/or government agencies realize that past project actions they approved were done with model(s) that have since been demonstrated as being inappropriate for the tasks that were requested of them.  Differing periods of time may have passed, from years to decades.  But the fact remains.  A project or action was approved … arguably, with the inappropriate, albeit inadvertent use of certain model(s), analytical tools, and assumptions. Leaving out any legal obligations, what does the regulatory agency, as a Lead Agency at the time do NOW? This is not some moral or ethical crusade but rather a simple example to make all of us practitioners aware of certain permitting eventualities that may be more immediate than eventual. Regardless of how we may ultimately choose to address such concerns, the question remains.  What do we do NOW? Obviously, for construction or infrastructure projects, we can’t tear them down and start over.  But for other projects involving various water governance actions for example, such as water allocations, minimum instream flows, dedicated yield targets, etc. … there are options. The original analyses for the approved project can be redone either in whole or in part, the discrepanc(ies) can be justifiably “explained away” without doing anything additional or, the entire issue can simply be ignored with the hope that nobody notices or, if they do, nobody cares ... All of which raises further interesting questions, like the percentage of environmental approvals that used inappropriate analytical tools and whether they continue to do so today ...