In response to President Donald Trump’s Unleashing American Energy executive order, multiple governmental agencies have introduced new rules for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Eight federal agencies have introduced policies like faster deadlines, page limits and removal of public input in order to expedite domestic energy production.
The White House lauds these new policies for enabling rapid development. However, environmental groups like Wilderness Workshop (WW) protest the new policies for undermining the intended purpose of NEPA and putting vital ecosystems at greater risk of being irreversibly damaged.
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA was initially drafted to protect the environment by requiring U.S. federal agencies to undergo an environmental impact review process before taking any action which uses federal funding, employs federal workers or requires federal permits.
On June 30, the White House announced sweeping reforms to NEPA in a press release which called the new policies part of an effort to “dramatically reduce the burdens” of NEPA compliance.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which includes the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Commerce which includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the Department of Interior, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have all enacted similar NEPA reforms designed to speed up infrastructure development and reduce extraction costs.
More specifically, the reforms include page limits and expedited deadlines for environmental reviews. Furthermore, USDA will no longer require the release of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the public. An EIS is a public document which presents all environmental consequences of an action and its proposed alternatives in detail.
Under previous regulations, agencies would present a draft EIS to the public to obtain comment and direct action before the final EIS is released and the proposed action is announced.
According to Wendy Park, senior attorney at the Center of Biological Diversity, while the public can still offer comment on a potential action while the EIS is being written, there won’t be a way for them to know what that action is and what its consequences might be without a draft EIS being published beforehand.
Faster EIS deadlines means the public will have less time to offer comments in the first place. Furthermore, there is no longer a requirement to delay the implementation of any action once the EPA has notified the public of the availability of the EIS.
Additionally, the USDA’s interim final rule states that, while responding to public comments is encouraged in order to demonstrate the rationale for final actions, providing responses is not mandatory and can lead to “burdensome and time-consuming efforts” which conflict with the new policies’ explicit aim to “reduce paperwork” and quicken the development process.
These new provisions are the latest in a series of potential federal rulings in the past several months which would alter or reduce the scope of NEPA.
On June 4, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a draft budget reconciliation proposal as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that included a provision to NEPA which would have allowed for “project sponsor opt-in fees for environmental reviews,” also described as a “pay-to-play” rule. Under this proposed provision — which did not pass — a private entity could offer to pay 125% of the cost to prepare an EIS in order to shorten the review process and eliminate judicial review of NEPA documentation.
A USDA interim ruling also includes language specifically referencing a May 29 Supreme Court ruling. In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, a group of seven Utah counties applied for the approval of an 88-mile railroad in Utah to transport oil throughout the Uinta Basin.
The prosecution accused the U.S. Surface Transportation Board of not considering all “reasonably foreseeable effects” in the EIS as mandated by NEPA — specifically, not considering oil development at either end of the rail. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the defendant, limiting the scope of NEPA reviews to only immediate effects of development and not “geographically distinct” effects.
Local environmental nonprofit WW has decried these policy changes and has created an online action hub in response to these new policies wherein the public can track developments and learn how to make their voices heard. In addition, WW will host a free in-person community conversation on Aug. 21 at the Third Street Center to share how these policies will change the lands they are working to protect.