Land Reclamation and Restoration: Goals, Challenges, and Methods

     Land reclamation encompasses a variety of disturbance sources, some natural, such as beach erosion leading to beach restoration, others anthropogenic, such as mining and oil & gas. Some reclamation is induced as a preventative measure to other problems, such as wetlands reclamation, where wetlands are drained to make land buildable, and stream reclamation to prevent flooding. That is perhaps confusing since this type of land reclamation can destroy wetlands that have environmental benefits. Landfilling with soil and sand is practiced to expand urban areas.

     Land restoration is the final goal of all land reclamation. Land restoration aims to bring land back to its natural state, and stream and wetland restoration is done to bring those water bodies back into a natural state. Any construction site or activity, such as road construction, where land is disturbed, requires some degree of reclamation. Those sites will often have things like erosion blankets, straw mulching, grass seeding, water catchment basins, topsoil return, and other features to improve drainage and reduce erosion and sedimentation. I will focus more here on oil & gas site reclamation than mine lands reclamation, which can be more extensive since it often encompasses much more land disturbance, and is a vaster subject.

     According to Grass Plus Landscaping, land reclamation and restoration:

“…involves rehabilitating areas affected by industrial activities, natural disasters, or other human interventions. Land reclamation aims to return the land to a productive and sustainable state while mitigating the negative impacts of its previous condition.”

 Examples of land reclamation and restoration include converting abandoned mine lands into recreational areas, converting “brownfields” into “greenfields” for urban development, and creating wetlands for biodiversity. They give six techniques used in land reclamation and restoration:

1)        Soil Replenishment and Enhancement – This simply involves replacing stripped-off soil with new soil of sufficient properties and fertility. The addition of specific plants and microorganisms can aid the chemical breakdown of pollutants.

2)        Erosion Control Measures – this refers to stabilizing the soil via the prevention of erosion and sedimentation.

3)        Grading and Reshaping – This refers to grading and contouring the land to a natural shape that leads to effective and efficient drainage of the site without additional erosion and sedimentation.

4)        Water Management and Treatment – This involves redirecting water via channels, drainage ditches, and underground pipe drainage. Water may also be treated for contaminants via physical, biological, and chemical processes.

5)        Reintroduction of Native Plants and Wildlife – This is important for restoration. The ability of reclaimed land to support native species is also a measure of success and a primary goal.

6)        Monitoring and Adaptive Management – This involves site monitoring and implementing adaptive management strategies. It may involve making adjustments to improve the site as more data is gathered and analyzed. It may continue for several years until the site is deemed fully restored.

 

 

Mine Lands Reclamation

“Abandoned mine lands (AMLs) are those lands, waters and surrounding watersheds where extraction, beneficiation or processing of ores and minerals has occurred. AMLs can pose serious threats to human health and the environment. The EPA conducts and supervises investigation and cleanup actions at a variety of mine sites. The Agency has a range of resources related to the environmental risks and challenges present in investigating and cleaning up AMLs. The EPA also pursues opportunities to explore innovative reuse opportunities at mine sites.”

     Ongoing mine land reclamation projects include acid mine drainage treatment and abatement programs, which can take many years to complete, and re-establishment of chemical treatment systems since the rocks and materials, such as limestone and steel slag, can get degraded over time. Other issues of importance in mine lands reclamation include mine subsidence, mine water releases, and impoundment overflows. Many of these processes need to be monitored long-term.  

     The U.S. government collects fees per ton of coal produced to pay for reclamation activities, as shown below.

 

Oil and Gas Site Reclamation

     Oil and gas site reclamation in the past was often guided by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) book: Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, also known as the Gold Book. The USGS and the BLM issued new guidelines for oil & gas site reclamation in January 2024. The reclamation section in the Gold Book stresses the need for planning as well as interim reclamation, which refers to ongoing reclamation during the development of the site.

“Planning for reclamation prior to construction is critical to achieving successful reclamation in the future. Reclamation becomes significantly more difficult, more expensive, and less effective if sufficient topsoil is not salvaged, interim reclamation is not completed, and if proper care is not taken to construct pads and roads in locations that minimize reclamation needs.”

     Erosion control is an important feature of land reclamation. It is deemed sufficient when:

 “…adequate groundcover is reestablished, water naturally infiltrates into the soil, and gullying, headcutting, slumping, and deep or excessive rilling is not observed.”

The site should also be free of invasive species, noxious weeds, oilfield debris, contaminated soil, water, or equipment. Reclamation plans should include plans for interim and final reclamation. If the well is to be plugged and abandoned, then a new reclamation plan must be submitted to reclaim the land used for the wellsite. Filling in and reclaiming pits is an important part of oilfield reclamation. The pits must be drained of liquids, then the liner removed, and all fluids contaminated with oil or brine must be removed. Sometimes pits may be solidified in place with the solids and the liner remaining in place to be buried. The pit covering should be mounded to account for the extra settling over the area. The remaining liner should not interfere with revegetation.

“All oil and gas drilling-related CERCLA hazardous substances removed from a location and not reused at another drilling location must be disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations.”  

     Regarding site prep and revegetation, the section in the book is succinct, informative, and repeated here:

“Site Preparation and Revegetation”

    “Disturbed areas should be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. Site preparation will include respreading topsoil to an adequate depth, and may also include ripping, tilling, disking on contour, and dozer track-imprinting. The operator will usually be advised of the revegetation methods, objectives, and seasons to plant, unless this information is included in the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) reclamation plan. Native perennial species or other plant materials specified by the surface management agency or private surface owner will be used. Seeding should be accomplished by drilling on the contour whenever practical or by other approved methods such as dozer track walking followed by broadcast seeding. Seeding or planting may need to be repeated until revegetation is successful, as determined by the surface management agency.”

Mulching, fertilizing, irrigating, fencing, or other practices may be involved in the revegetation effort. Climatic conditions such as drought, weather, season, and land use, such as for cattle grazing, are also factors in revegetation. The previous plant community at the site should be documented and recreated, if possible, to optimize the return of the original ecosystem. Effective topsoil return, remediation of contaminated or compacted soil, are other factors.

     Guidelines for pipelines include co-locating them with roads as much as possible. This section is also succinct and informative, so I will repeat a section of it as well:

     “Pipeline trenches are to be compacted during backfilling and must be maintained to correct backfill settling and prevent erosion. Reclamation involves placing fill in the trench, compacting the fill, regrading cut-and-fill slopes to restore the original contour, replacing topsoil, installing temporary waterbars only where necessary to control erosion, and revegetating in accordance with a reclamation plan. Waterbars and other erosion control devices must be maintained and repaired as necessary.”

     “Following successful revegetation, surviving waterbars must be flattened to blend with the slope and then revegetated. If berms of topsoil were originally placed over the trench to accommodate settling, the surviving berms should also be flattened to blend with the surrounding landform and revegetated.”

   “Final abandonment of pipelines and flowlines will involve flushing and properly disposing of any fluids in the lines. All surface lines and any lines that are buried close to the surface that may become exposed due to water or wind erosion, soil movement, or anticipated subsequent use, must be removed. Deeply buried lines may remain in place unless otherwise directed by the authorized officer.”

Waterbars are drainage ditches that divert surface water away from the site.

     Interim reclamation at the well site involves reclaiming any part of the site not needed for continuing operations. Those portions are recontoured to blend in with natural contours. Topsoil should be re-spread over those areas and then seeded with suitable plants.

“To reduce final reclamation costs; maintain healthy, biologically active topsoil; and to minimize habitat, visual, and forage loss during the life of the well, all salvaged topsoil should be spread over the area of interim reclamation, rather than stockpiled. Where the topography is flat and it is, therefore, unnecessary to recontour the well location at the time of final reclamation, the operator may set aside sufficient topsoil for final reclamation of the small, unreclaimed area around the wellhead. Any topsoil pile set aside should be revegetated to prevent it from eroding and to help maintain its biological viability. On sloped ground, during final reclamation, the topsoil and interim vegetation must be restripped from portions of the site that are not at the original contour, the well pad recontoured, and the topsoil respread over the entire disturbed site to ensure successful revegetation.”

     Final reclamation should not rely on revegetation alone, but also restoration as much as possible to the original landform, with topsoil redistributed evenly. Topsoil restriping should precede recontouring. Backfills are best performed in dry conditions, if possible.

“Water breaks and terracing should only be installed when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion of fill material and should be removed when the site is successfully revegetated and stabilized.”

     Portions of the roads not needed for continuing operations should be reclaimed. Cut slopes, fill slopes, and borrow ditches should be covered with topsoil and revegetated. At final abandonment, the roads must be reclaimed unless an agreement is made with the surface owner and regulatory agency. Removal of undesirable vegetation and recontouring to match natural contours is also done.

     Restoration includes, foremost, a return to the original ecosystem, and this process takes time and should be monitored over time. Ecosystem restoration includes the restoration of the natural vegetation, hydrology, and wildlife habitats.

    The new USGS/BLM oil & gas site reclamation guidance adds more BMPs, including for post-reclamation site monitoring.

“Resource inventory, monitoring, and protection of oil and gas sites are mandated by federal statutes and regulations, yet this is the first publication defining standards and guidelines for how to successfully monitor soil and vegetation outcomes of disturbed oil and gas sites and evaluate those monitoring data against standards available at a national level. The report emphasizes the importance of best management practices, clear standards, effective monitoring and minimizing surface disturbance for successful land reclamation.”

     The BLM separates oil & gas site reclamation into four phases: pre-construction, construction and operation, post-construction, and long-term. State agencies or the BLM approve reclamation plans. BLM and/or state agency inspections occur most often in the post-construction phase. According to the USGS:

“…reclamation benchmarks include indicators of erosion and site stability, species composition and community structure.”

“Successful reclamation is achieved when the standards defining soil and vegetation recovery are met, and a self-sustaining, vigorous, diverse, native, or approved plant community that minimizes visual land disturbance, provides forage, stabilizes soils and prevents noxious weeds from taking hold is in place.”

     As can be seen from the map below, the BLM mainly regulates areas in the Plains and the Western U.S. Below that are the BLM’s work flows for interim and final reclamation and restoration. The third figure below shows soil suitability to be considered for use as topsoil.   

     The temporary use of wooden mats can minimize soil and vegetation disturbance.

     For pipelines, the use of bucket augers and rock or wheel saws can minimize soil and vegetation impact.

     There are best management practices (BMPs) for vegetation removal, weed prevention and management, soil ripping and tilling, topsoil storage and handling, erosion control, seed quality and application, soil amendments, interim weed control, and long-term site monitoring.   

 

Erosion and Sedimentation Control

     The goal of erosion and sedimentation control is to increase the drainage of surface water off the disturbed land without the transport of sediment off the site. Disturbed soils where vegetation and topsoil are removed become very vulnerable to erosion by wind, surface water, and rain. BMPs for erosion control include reducing slope angles during earthwork, consideration of site-specific features, protection of stored topsoil and fill dirt, the use of erosion control matting, polypropylene erosion control blankets, double net matting or blankets for steeper slopes, interim revegetation where applicable, raindrop impact protection, hydro-mulching to stabilize steep slopes, final slope of 4-6% where applicable, prevention of water ponding, the use of water barriers, embankment reshaping, and checking the site after heavy rainfall events.

“To prevent erosion during construction, diversion terraces and ditches, mulch, riprap, fiber matting, temporary sediment traps, broad-based drainage dips, water bars, lateral furrows, biodegradable wattles, weed-free straw bales, or silt fences are employed as necessary to reduce offsite transport of sediments. These structures are installed during construction and left in place and maintained until the site undergoes interim reclamation.”

     Grass Plus Landscaping divides erosion control into five strategies:

1)        Vegetation Establishment – This is usually the preferred way to control erosion if it is possible.

2)        Mulching – Straw, wood chips, and geotextiles are used for mulch, which protects the site against raindrop impacts, reduces evaporation, and retains moisture for vegetation.

3)        Terracing and Contouring – These are used on steeper slopes with the final goal of matching the natural topography.

4)        Erosion Control Blankets and Matting – These are used to prevent severe erosion, typically on steeper slopes.

5)        Drainage Management – This typically includes constructing ditches, channels, and retention ponds.

 

Regulations and Regulatory Issues

     For coal and minerals mine reclamation, the first big rule in the U.S. was the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Any hazardous substances spilled or remaining after reclamation at oil & gas sites are subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Other federal laws and numerous state laws often apply as well. Other agencies also have land reclamation guidance, including the USDA, USGS, BLM, and EPA.

 

Land Reclamation and Restoration Challenges

     Grass Plus Landscaping gives five challenges of land reclamation and restoration:

1)        Site Complexity and Diversity – Each site is unique with different topography, soils, potential contamination sources, and more.

2)        Financial and Time Constraints – Land reclamation and restoration are often expensive and time-consuming but must be integrated with project timelines.

3)        Stakeholder Engagement – Addressing the concerns of surface owners and other local stakeholders is important.

4)        Legal and Regulatory Compliance – Different permits and standards may apply in different places.

5)        Long-Term Sustainability – This is the final goal, but ongoing management may be necessary to achieve it.

 

References:

 

Land Reclamation and Restoration: Techniques and Challenges. Grass Plus Landscaping. November 25, 2023. Land Reclamation and Restoration: Techniques and Challenges

The Comprehensive Guide to Land Reclamation: Expanding Horizons Responsibly, G3SoilWorks. G3 Blog. June 30, 2024. Comprehensive Guide to Land Reclamation

Oil and Gas Site Reclamation. Bureau of Land Management. Oil and Gas Site Reclamation | Bureau of Land Management

Oil and Gas Reclamation – About. USGS. Oil and Gas Reclamation - About | U.S. Geological Survey

Land Reclamation. Trihydro. Land Reclamation | Erosion Control & Revegetation | Trihydro

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD. LAND RECLAMATION, LANDSLIDE TREATMENT. CODE 453 (ac). September 2022. Conservation Practice Standard Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (Code 453)

New guidelines for successful oil & gas reclamation. USGS. January 26, 2024. New guidelines for successful oil and gas reclamation | U.S. Geological Survey

How and why U.S. energy developers can achieve a robust ecological impact strategy. Ellie Murphy. American Society of Reclamation Sciences. Reclamation Matters. Spring 2024. Reclamation-Matters_Spring-2024.pdf

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: The Gold Book. Bureau of Land Management. Fourth Edition - Revised 2007.  GEN15-BLMGoldBook.pdf

Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands: Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. U.S. Department of the Interior. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands | Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Oil and Gas Reclamation—Operations, Monitoring Methods, and Standards: Chapter 1 of  Section A, Reclamation Activities. Book 18, Land and Resource Management. U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Land Management. December 28, 2023. TM 18–A1: Oil and Gas Reclamation—Operations, Monitoring

Agrivoltaics: Studies Reveal That Sheep Grazing Between and Under Solar Panels Have Better Health and Wool

    Two recent studies undertaken to ascertain the effects of solar panels of large grid-scale solar farms on grazing sheep have revealed that the sheep grazing on the solar farms show improvement in wool quality and general health. I should point out that the improvements, though significant, were not drastic. However, these are still quite desirable outcomes.

     One study took place in 2022-2023 in France, and the other in Australia. In both studies, the main positive conclusions are 1) that the presence of the solar panels allowed the sheep to reduce heat stress. In the French study, this was measured by respiration rates, which are higher during stress; and 2) the shade provided by the panels resulted in higher nutritional quality forage under them due to that shade protecting the forage and retaining moisture under the panels. The coolness and moisture also led to less dust under them than in the open areas. Slight improvements in wool quality were also a result. The solar panels can also offer shelter to sheep. I know my goats that I kept for many years were quite averse to rain, trying to stay out of it as much as possible. Sheep are also averse to rain, but not as much as goats, according to my inquiry.  

     As an added benefit for the solar development company, the sheep can keep vegetation around the panels cleared, which results in lower maintenance costs. Both studies involved observing the sheep over extended periods of time. No negative health effects associated with the pales were observed, although the French study noted that noise levels around the inverters occasionally reaching 70dB were avoided by the sheep when making noise.

     Although I was unable to read the French study, I got a Microsoft CoPilot summary in English. It noted that there were no changes in the sheep’s cycle of 8 hours of grazing, 8 hours of ruminating, and 8 hours of resting. The sheep did, however, head to the shade of the panels when they got too hot. Thus, thermal comfort is desirable by the sheep. No differences were observed in parasite infestations and cleanliness levels from the control group. The CoPilot summary further notes:

·        Forage Quality & Availability: Grass height and density were greater under the panels compared to open areas. The forage in shaded zones contained more protein and was more digestible, making it beneficial for the sheep.

·        Climate Buffering: The presence of panels reduced the effect of frost in winter and extreme heat in summer, suggesting that solar farms could provide more stable grazing conditions year-round.

‘The study concludes that photovoltaic panels can serve as beneficial shelters for sheep, improving thermal comfort without negatively affecting health or grazing behavior. Modifications in herding practices and inverter placements could further optimize conditions.’

      The figure below shows the parameter values in the Australian study, and the picture below shows the contrast of shade and sun made by the solar panels, where the shaded areas are cooler and wetter, with less dust.

    

 

References:

 

Thousands of Sheep Grazing Under Solar Panels Experienced Unexpected Changes That Could Reshape Farming. Somdatta Maity. Front Page Detectives. May 30, 2025. Thousands of Sheep Grazing Under Solar Panels Experienced Unexpected Changes That Could Reshape Farming

1,700 Sheep Set Up Between Solar Panels Reveal an Incredible Transformation: Thousands of sheep grazing under solar panels are experiencing unexpected changes that could reshape farming. The surprising benefits go beyond simple shelter, hinting at something much bigger. Juliette Dubois. Daily Galaxy. May 20, 2025. 1,700 Sheep Set Up Between Solar Panels Reveal an Incredible Transformation

Wool quality and sustainability: Insights from Lightsource bp’s Wellington solar farm. Lightsourcebp. October 29, 2024. Wool quality and sustainability: Insights from Lightsource bp’s Wellington solar farm | Lightsource bp

Study confirms positive effects of photovoltaic panels on sheep grazing. French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE). April 25, 2024. Study confirms positive effects of photovoltaic panels on sheep grazing | INRAE

Rapport d’étude sur le bien-être animal – Centrale solaire de CVE à Bissey-sous-Cruchaud. Véronique DEISS, Chargée de Recherches bien-être animal, INRAE. COM - rapport étude bien etre animal INRAE CVE STATKRFAT v2_0.pdf

Climate Litigation Insanity: More Theatre Than Science and It Invites Backlash

     I think that modern energy companies, including oil & gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, etc., companies, those with high Scope 3 emissions or environmental liabilities in the ESG vernacular, should be required to put forth a certain amount of effort in decarbonization. They are expected to do so. I think voluntary actions are better than mandated actions. If a company is lagging on its decarbonization efforts, it can be called out by some mechanism, perhaps even by environmental groups. This does happen and can act as a useful check and balance. Regulations, whether mandated or voluntary, should not give any one company an advantage or a disadvantage, but seek to be balanced in determining regulatory burdens, if it is feasible.

     The daughter of a woman who died in her vehicle in the Pacific Northwest during a heatwave that reached 108 degrees Fahrenheit in June 2021, is suing oil & gas companies for her death. Aside from the fact that there is no way to definitively link those carbon emissions from oil & gas companies to the heat wave in that particular place and time, there is also no evidence that other factors, such as her being in a car, which can get very hot, was not the major factor in her death. Did she have functional air conditioning in the car?

     The lawsuit seems to take the format of previous lawsuits against oil companies: that they knew about global warming and failed to warn the public. This is despite the whole climate change focus that has pervaded media and science over the past few decades. If you watch or read the news, there are many warnings about the potential dangers and impacts of global warming and extreme weather. They are hard to miss.

     The article in The Cool Down notes that a group of climate researchers determined that the Heat Dome that occurred in the Pacific Northwest would have been impossible without global warming. The next thing to determine would be how much of that global warming is attributable to human actions and how much is natural. This has not been adequately determined, despite the UN’s predictions. Then, one would have to determine what percentage of that is due to oil companies and then what percentage is covered by U.S. oil companies. Then, all sorts of weather scenario likelihoods would have to be determined. The end result is likely to be riddled with errors.

“In the past 10 years, roughly three-dozen state and local governments have sued oil and gas companies over the environmental impacts of their products, according to the Times.”

     What about coal companies? Should they be sued as well?  I do sympathize with the woman filing the suit, I mean, she lost her mother, which must be devastating. However, to blame oil companies is not a solution to the problem and invites backlash from others who see it as a ploy to promote the cause of climate activism and to demonize and punish oil companies.  

     OK, But What If a resident of, say, California, dies from heat exhaustion? If the person had no access to an air conditioner or failed to use it due to the high costs of electricity (which in California are due in large part to the high share of solar on the grid), should a lawsuit against a solar power company be allowed in that scenario? Or maybe the person could not get a ride to a place with air conditioning due to high gasoline prices due to state tax policies. Should they be able to sue the government? What about a person who freezes to death? Should their descendants be allowed to sue governments for slowing climate change? Perhaps if there were more global warming, the cold weather event that caused the death would not have occurred. There are examples where a lawsuit would seem to have more merit due to more directly attributable causes. People froze to death in Texas in 2021 due to an inadequately weatherized energy system. Those people have a more direct avenue to sue their regional electricity provider, ERCOT, perhaps along with power plant owners and well owners, due to the loss of natural gas delivery. It is far easier to establish causation in that case than in overheating deaths during heat waves. I am not sure if ERCOT or those in charge of natural gas deliverability were sued, but plaintiffs would have a much better case than climate suit plaintiffs do.

     The article notes that this is the first time a plaintiff has sought to hold the oil and gas companies responsible for the death of a particular individual. Other suits have focused more on change and accountability. These results are political theatre, and while some may have good intentions or strongly believe what they are doing is correct, there are more important issues with nearer-term, better attributable impacts that can be pursued by our legal system. As noted, they also invite backlash from practical people who do not see a need to punish companies for their emissions, especially if they are not doing anything illegal.

 

    

References:

 

Daughter files landmark case against oil companies after devastating personal loss: 'There's no way to comprehend that'. Daniel Gala. The Cool Down. May 29, 2025. Daughter files landmark case against oil companies after devastating personal loss: 'There's no way to comprehend that'

SCOTUS Rules 8-0 that NEPA Reviews Be Limited, Reasonable, and Timely: Uinta Basin Oil-By-Rail Project Now More Likely to Go Forward

     In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the scope of federally required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews be narrowed. This is a good decision, as the act has long been abused by activists to unfairly delay important infrastructure and energy projects. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself, possibly as a result of his past work for a client that owns leases in the Uinta Basin.

     The case involves the building of 88 miles of railroad tracks, mainly to facilitate the transport of waxy crude (crude oil with a high paraffin content) from the Uinta Basin in Northeast Utah to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The high paraffin content makes Uinta oil difficult to transport via pipeline. It requires heating to do so, which makes it prohibitively expensive. Thus, rail transport is the best option for Uinta Basin crude.

     Below is a section from the SCOTUS Syllabus:

“In sum, when assessing significant environmental effects and feasible alternatives for purposes of NEPA, an agency will invariably make a series of fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry—and also about the length, content, and level of detail of the resulting EIS. Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness. Even a deficient EIS does not necessarily require vacating an agency’s project approval, absent reason to believe that the agency might disapprove the project if it added more to the EIS.  Cf. 5 U. S. C. §706.  Pp. 6–15.”

 “(b) Contrary to the D. C. Circuit’s NEPA analysis, the Board’s determination that its EIS need not evaluate possible environmental effects from upstream and downstream projects separate from the Uinta Basin Railway complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, particularly NEPA’s textually mandated focus on the “proposed action” under agency review.  While indirect environmental effects of the project itself may fall within NEPA’s scope even if they might extend outside the geographical territory of the project or materialize later in time, the fact that the project might foreseeably lead to the construction or increased use of a separate project does not mean the agency must consider that separate project’s environmental effects.  See Public Citizen, 541 U. S., at 767.  This is particularly true where, as here, those separate projects fall outside the agency’s regulatory authority.  Pp. 15–21.”

“(c) NEPA does not allow courts, “under the guise of judicial review” of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, 558.  Pp. 21–22.”

     Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, part of which is reproduced below:

“NEPA is a purely procedural statute that, as relevant here, simply requires an agency to prepare an EIS—in essence, a report. Importantly, NEPA does not require the agency to weigh environmental consequences in any particular way.”

2 SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION v. EAGLE COUNTY Opinion of the Court

“Rather, an agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit under its governing statute and any relevant substantive environmental laws.

     Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.

      In this case, the U. S. Surface Transportation Board considered a proposal by a group of seven Utah counties for the construction and operation of an approximately 88-mile railroad line in northeastern Utah.  Under federal law, the Board determines whether to approve construction of new railroad lines.  The railroad line here would connect Utah’s oil-rich Uinta Basin—a rural territory roughly the size of the State of Maryland—to the national rail network. By doing so, the new railroad line would facilitate the transportation of crude oil from Utah to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere.  And the project would bring significant economic development and jobs to the isolated Uinta Basin by better connecting the Basin to the national economy.

 For that proposed 88-mile Utah railroad line, the Board prepared an extraordinarily lengthy EIS, spanning more than 3,600 pages of environmental analysis.  The Board’s EIS addressed the environmental effects of the railroad line.  But the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit nonetheless faulted the EIS for not sufficiently considering the environmental effects of projects separate from the railroad line itself—primarily, the environmental effects that could ensue from (i) increased oil drilling upstream in the Uinta Basin and (ii) increased oil refining downstream along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas.

     On that basis, the D. C. Circuit vacated the Board’s EIS and the Board’s approval of the 88-mile railroad line. As a result, construction still has not begun even though the Board approved the project back in December 2021.”

     This decision has been widely expected. As expected, environmental groups like Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, and climate groups condemned the decision. It is a commonsense decision that limits the massive overreach of environmental groups to sue over and over again and delay projects for years, even decades, making it very difficult and very expensive, often prohibitively expensive, for project developers to pursue important projects.

     According to Nick Smith, a spokesman for the American Forest Resource Council, who has decried the weaponization of NEPA:

“These lawsuits mistakenly demand exhaustive analysis of every hypothetical alternative and remote impact, stretching NEPA documents into the thousands of pages and dragging reviews on for five or more years — even then facing renewed legal challenges,” Smith said in an email. “We are hopeful this ruling sets a clear precedent for restoring common sense to environmental reviews.”

     Kudos to SCOTUS for getting this right, unanimously.

      Below is a map I got from HeatMap that shows the route of the proposed rail project.

    

References:

 

Supreme Court narrows scope of environmental reviews. Justin Jouvenal and Maxine Joselow. Washington Post. May 29, 2025. Supreme Court narrows scope of environmental reviews

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION ET AL. v. EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 23–975. Argued December 10, 2024—Decided May 29, 2025. 23-975 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (05/29/25)

Brick Production Tweaks Can Significantly Reduce Air Pollution in Bangladesh Says New Study

    The process of brickmaking in Bangladesh involves stacking bricks and burning pulverized coal in between stacks of bricks. A new study shows that how those bricks are stacked and how the coal is placed can result in significant air pollution emissions reduction. Brick kiln pollution in South Asia is a major source of pollution, and efforts to regulate the industry have largely failed in the past in Bangladesh. According to the Stanford Report, the trials convinced regulators in Bangladesh that the new tweaks will work.

“The randomized controlled trial tested an intervention involving simple, low-cost operational changes, such as continuous fuel feeding and more efficient brick stacking. The approach reduced coal use by 23% and carbon dioxide emissions by about 20%, while improving brick quality and reducing owner costs. The intervention's success led initially skeptical Bangladesh government officials to encourage rolling out the intervention nationwide.”

     Brick making in Bangladesh is considered to be an informal industry in a low-income developing country. Regulation of informal industries in low-income countries has a long record of failure. However, the improvements in cost reduction and pollution reduction in this case suggest that the practices should become widely adopted. It was also noted that exploitative labor practices, such as child labor, are sometimes used in informal industries, including brick making, and that those who make brick by this method also face significant pollution exposure. Brick making in Bangladesh, where 27 billion bricks are produced annually, and in South Asia as a whole, is a big industry. However, in Bangladesh, it accounts for 17% of CO₂ emissions and 11% of PM2.5 emissions annually.

     Researchers at the Boston School of Public Health, Stanford University, icddr,b, Greentech Knowledge Solutions, and the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology developed the new methods. Results of the randomized controlled trials:

“…showed that brick kiln owners in Bangladesh are willing and able to implement cleaner and more efficient business practices within their operations—without legal enforcement—if they receive the proper training and support, and if those changes are aligned with their profit motives.”

     The study showed that energy-efficient changes to the production process, such as streamlining brick stacking and using powered biomass fuel, lead to more complete fuel combustion and a reduction of heat loss in the kilns. This is a success story as the following statement from Boston University School of Public Health shows’

“The study found that 65 percent of the brick kiln owners adopted these changes, which led to a  23-percent reduction in energy use. The changes substantially improved air quality, contributing to 20-percent reductions in CO₂ and PM2.5 emissions. This intervention also brought substantial savings in coal expenditures and higher-quality bricks. Notably, the researchers estimated that the social benefits due CO2 reductions from the intervention outweighed costs by a factor of 65 to 1 and that the CO2 reductions were achieved at the low cost of $2.85/ton. When the team returned to participating brick kilns the next year, they found adoption of the improved practices had not only sustained but increased.”

“Our findings demonstrate that brick kiln owners are willing to embrace simple changes that protect human and environmental health when they have the knowledge and training, and those changes deliver tangible economic gain.”

     Current regulations ban the use of firewood for brick making and have distance requirements from schools and health facilities. However, enforcement of these rules is often lacking.

“An important area for future research is identifying strategies to improve work conditions that are aligned with kiln owners’ profit motives and may be implemented within a weak regulatory state.”

“The researchers’ energy-efficient intervention may be scalable across South Asia, such as in India and Nepal, where brick manufacturing practices are similar—and possibly across other industries. Future research will consider how to best scale the intervention, as well as develop the next generation of efficiency improvements for the brick industry.”

     A 2024 pilot study in Energy Research & Social Science noted:

“Traditional kilns—in particular fixed chimney kilns—are highly inefficient. A zigzag kiln, which represents a modest change over the fixed-chimney kiln and is more energy efficient, is still traditional and informal. An existing fixed-chimney kiln can be retrofitted into zigzag kiln by making some modifications to the kiln structure, using a fan, and changing how bricks are stacked inside the kiln. When constructed and operated properly, a zigzag kiln enables more complete combustion of fuel and more uniform heat distribution in the kiln, which reduces emissions but also increases the profitability of a kiln through reduced fuel costs and increased production of high-quality bricks. Because zigzag kilns are theoretically more energy efficient and less polluting, they are classified as “environmentally friendly” by the GoB. But when zigzag kilns are constructed or operated incorrectly, as the majority in Bangladesh are, they may be just as polluting as fixed-chimney kilns. Consequently, the traditional brick industry remains a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.”

     The Editor’s summary, abstract, and conclusions from the new paper in Science are shown below. This is a public health success story that has the potential to be repeated as technological advancements to increase efficiency and reduce emissions are introduced to informal industries around the world.

 

 

     

 

References:

 

Research guides Bangladesh toward cleaner brick production. Stanford Report. Stanford University. May 8. 2025.  Research guides Bangladesh toward cleaner brick production | Stanford Report

Researchers Develop Practical Solution to Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality from Brick Manufacturing in Bangladesh. Bangladesh University and Stanford School of Public Health. May 8, 2025. Researchers Develop Practical Solution to Reduce Emissions and Improve Air Quality from Brick Manufacturing in Bangladesh | SPH

Reducing emissions and air pollution from informal brick kilns: Evidence from Bangladesh. Nina Brooks, Debashish Biswas, Sameer Maithel, Grant Miller, Aprajit Mahajan, M. Rofi Uddin, Shoeb Ahmed, Moogdho Mahzab, Mahbubur Rahman, and Stephen P. Luby. Science. 8 May 2025. Vol 388, Issue 6747. Reducing emissions and air pollution from informal brick kilns: Evidence from Bangladesh | Science

Building blocks of change: The energy, health, and climate co-benefits of more efficient brickmaking in Bangladesh. Nina Brooks, Debashish Biswas, Sameer Maithel, Sonal Kumar, Mohammad Rofi Uddin, Shoeb Ahmed, Moogdho Mahzab, Grant Miller, Mahbubur Rahman, and Stephen P. Luby. Energy Research & Social Science. Volume 117, November 2024, 103738. Building blocks of change: The energy, health, and climate co-benefits of more efficient brickmaking in Bangladesh - ScienceDirect