1. The Role of the Project Proponent in the NEPA Process PUBLIC LANDS ADVOCACY NEPA & PERMITTING SEMINAR Zeke Williams June 11, 2008

2. Faegre & Benson LLP NEPA & Private Applicants Federal action trigger Private proposals –Permits –Leases –Authorizations –Decisions

3. Faegre & Benson LLP Federal Oil and Gas Lease & Development

4. Faegre & Benson LLP Corps of Engineers 404 Permit

5. Faegre & Benson LLP Natural Gas Pipeline on Federal Lands

6. Faegre & Benson LLP BLM Resource Management Plan

7. Faegre & Benson LLP MMS Permits & Approvals for Offshore Oil & Gas Development

8. Faegre & Benson LLP Ski Area on National Forest System Lands

9. Questions & Issues

10. Faegre & Benson LLP Proposed Action Federal proposals vs. private proposals Proposal contents –Specific technical information –Objectives –Goals –Agency statutes, regulations and policies –Relationship to purpose and need

11. Faegre & Benson LLP Purpose & Need Agency’s goals and objectives Defines range of reasonable alternatives Agency objectives vs. proponent objectives Majority rule 7 th Circuit rule

12. Faegre & Benson LLP Alternatives Agency’s obligation Relationship to proposal Proponent’s role

13. Faegre & Benson LLP Comments & Responses Agency required to request comments from the applicant Value of public comments to proponent Response to comments by proponent Agency review

14. Faegre & Benson LLP Meetings With the Agency Can the applicant meet with the agency? Open exchange of information Agency independence Administrative record Federal Advisory Committee Act

15. Third Party NEPA Contracts

16. Faegre & Benson LLP Third Party NEPA Contracts - Overview Contractor prepares EIS or EA Contractor works for agency Proponent funds work Agency independently evaluates work Voluntary Benefits

17. Faegre & Benson LLP Selecting the Contractor Agency selects contractor for an EIS Proponent’s role –solicit candidates –recommend a contractor –document that agency makes decision EA –Proponent selects contractor –Agency independently evaluates EA

18. Faegre & Benson LLP The Contract Between contractor and proponent No required form Recite elements of 40 CFR 1506.5 –Contractor works for the agency –Agency will independently evaluate the contractor’s work –Proponent will fund the work Agency/applicant MOU Administrative record

19. Faegre & Benson LLP Conflicts of Interest Potential for conflicts Disclosure statement for EIS “No financial or other interest in the outcome of the project” –40 CFR 1506.5 EA Poor guidance on issue Caselaw

20. Faegre & Benson LLP “A contractor with an agreement, enforceable promise or guarantee of future work has a conflict of interest.” –Associations Working for Aurora’s Residential Environ. v. Colorado Dep’t of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1128 (10 th Cir. 1998)

21. Faegre & Benson LLP Conflict of Interest Caselaw Focus on the integrity and objectivity of the NEPA process Agency oversight and independent evaluation overcomes alleged defects Prior work for the proponent “Heightened expectations” of future work Bidding on future work “Guaranteed outcome”

22. NEPA Litigation

23. Faegre & Benson LLP Three Roles for the Proponent in NEPA Litigation Department of Justice Defends the Agency Participate as Amicus Intervene as Party Defendant

24. Faegre & Benson LLP Proponent as Amicus in NEPA Litigation By permission of the Court File a brief Limitations –not a party –no right to be heard –no appeal rights –no seat at settlement table

25. Faegre & Benson LLP Proponent as Intervenor Defendant Intervention as of Right Rule 24(a)(2) Legal right to intervene Timely Protectable Interest Impairment Inadequate representation Permissive Intervention Rule 24(b)(2) Discretionary Timely Common questions No undue delay or prejudice

26. Faegre & Benson LLP Effect of Intervention in a NEPA Case Proponent is a party to litigation Proponent files briefs, motions, etc. Proponent can defend an injunction Proponent participates in settlement negotiations Appeal rights

27. Faegre & Benson LLP NEPA Intervention Issues Adequacy of representation Prudential standing under APA Intervention as of right –10 th, 5 th, and 3 rd Circuits –9 th and 7 th Circuits Permissive intervention

28. Zeke Williams zwilliams@faegre.com 303.607.3665 2969889