One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to roll back regulations. On Jan. 9 at the White House, Trump announced he was doing just that for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
“Today, we’re taking another historic step in our campaign to slash job-killing regulations and improve the quality of life for all of our citizens,” Trump said at a White House event. “These endless delays waste money, keep projects from breaking ground, and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers.”
NEPA was created in 1970 in order to establish a national policy for evaluating potential effects of any proposed action on the environment. Since its implementation, some in the industry have argued the NEPA process is slow and bureaucratic.
A recent proposed rulemaking by the administrative agency Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has intentions to change that.
CEQ’s proposed rule would “modernize and clarify the CEQ regulations to facilitate more efficient, effective, and timely NEPA reviews…” and “seeks to reduce unnecessary paperwork and delays, and to promote better decision-making consistent with NEPA’s statutory requirements,” according to a CEQ fact sheet.
CEQ’s proposal to modernize NEPA is the first in more than 40 years.
Key elements of the proposal
CEQ proposes accelerating the NEPA process by establishing a two-year time limit for environmental impact statements, and one year for environmental assessments. Presumptive page limits would be specified, joint schedules would be required, and a single environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision would be used for multiple agencies.
“This is being addressed to stop putting so much time into giant documents that basically only serve as basis for litigation down the road anyway.”
Attempts to clarify terms, application and scope of the NEPA review are proposed in order to speed up the process as well. Examples include requiring comments to be specific and timely, soliciting public input earlier, and simplifying the definition of environmental effects.
CEQ also proposes enhanced coordination with states, tribes and localities to reduce duplication and eliminate provisions in the current regulation that limit tribal interest to reservations.
A reduction in unnecessary burdens and delays would accelerate the NEPA process by facilitating use of efficient reviews such as categorical exclusions or environmental assessments, allowing agencies to adopt other agencies’ categorical exemptions, and allow applicants to have a greater role in preparing EISs.
What people are saying
Tanner Beymer, associate director of government affairs at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), explained the necessity of NEPA changes on NCBA’s official podcast, Beltway Beef.
“When NEPA stands in the way of progress, both ranchers and rural communities suffer.”
“Folks in the ranching community really understand this is a process that they have to become intimately familiar with in order to remain compliant,” Beymer said. “The [Jan. 9] rule moved to modernize and simplify the process—speed it up.”
Beymer noted the average length of a NEPA review across the entirety of the federal government can take four-and-a-half years.
“It shouldn’t take that long under any circumstances,” Beymer said. “This is being addressed to stop putting so much time into giant documents that basically only serve as basis for litigation down the road anyway.”
Others in the agriculture industries have expressed their support for the proposal.
“Whether on public lands or private, ranchers provide critical improvements to rangelands and infrastructure,” Ethan Lane, vice president of government affairs at NCBA, said in a released statement. “When NEPA stands in the way of progress, both ranchers and rural communities suffer.”
Nevada rancher J.J. Goicoechea joined Beymer on the NCBA podcast and echoed Lane’s statement.
“If there’s a drought in Nevada, ranchers need to haul water or develop water sources for wildlife,” Goicoechea said. “They are often held up with NEPA—Some are held up three to five years. If it’s an emergency situation and you don’t have a drought environmental assessment that was done in that grazing district, you might not be able to haul water to your livestock and you’ll be forced to bring them home.”
“This NEPA rewrite favors big polluters and corporate profits over balanced, science-based decision-making and would prevent Washingtonians from voicing their views.”
Others, however, believe the proposal ignores climate change impacts when assessing a project.
“At a time when the devastating effects of climate change are becoming more apparent every day, it is profoundly irresponsible that the Trump administration would propose to exclude it from environmental reviews,” said Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO Jamie Rappaport.
U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were also quick to slam the proposal for excluding climate change.
“This NEPA rewrite favors big polluters and corporate profits over balanced, science-based decision-making and would prevent Washingtonians from voicing their views,” Cantwell said.
Merkley shared a similar view: “These changes to one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws will undoubtedly worsen our climate crisis and weaken critical safeguards for air, water, and endangered species.”
What comes next?
CEQ has opened a commenting period on the proposed rule, which will run until March 10. Comments may be submitted online at regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID CEQ-2019-0003; by fax to 202-456-6546; or by mail to Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Docket No. CEQ-2019-0003.
Two public hearings will also be hosted by CEQ in Denver, CO on Feb. 11, and Washington, D.C. on Feb. 25. — Anna Miller, WLJ editor
