{"id":161958,"date":"2020-08-14T12:17:30","date_gmt":"2020-08-14T19:17:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/?p=161958"},"modified":"2020-09-24T07:28:58","modified_gmt":"2020-09-24T14:28:58","slug":"a-major-environmental-law-just-changed-heres-what-you-need-to-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/a-major-environmental-law-just-changed-heres-what-you-need-to-know","title":{"rendered":"A Major Environmental Law Just Changed. Here\u2019s What You Need to Know.\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration last month finalized sweeping revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), putting new boundaries on the public review process created by the landmark environmental law. It\u2019s the latest in a series of more than 100 environmental rewrites <\/a>\u00a0made since President Donald Trump took office in 2016.<\/p>\n

Created in 1970, NEPA<\/a> has required that federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of proposed projects and involve the public before making decisions. The law applies to a range of actions, everything from building highways, methane plants and pipelines to wildlife management in national parks. Agencies have to publish their findings, allow timely public review, respond to public concerns and explore proposed alternatives.<\/p>\n

In January, the administration proposed changes to NEPA regulations, saying they will help speed up the project permitting process and save money. The revisions, finalized on July 15, include page and time limits for environmental reviews, new requirements for submitting a public comment and updated categories of projects that can be excluded from an environmental review altogether. The new language also exempts agencies from having to consider \u201ccumulative\u201d environmental impacts, which refer to actions that have a significant environmental impact over time. For instance, as a result of climate change.<\/p>\n

While proponents have applauded the move toward a quicker permitting process, critics say the revisions chip away at the transparency and public review that NEPA is intended to protect.<\/p>\n

The revisions<\/span><\/span>,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>slated to\u00a0<\/span><\/span>take effect Sept. 15<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span>, c<\/span><\/span>an\u00a0<\/span><\/span>be withdrawn and replaced by a future administration<\/span><\/span>\u00a0through the same process the Trump administration took<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The<\/span><\/span>\u00a0revisions c<\/span><\/span>an also be delayed or invalidated<\/span><\/span>\u00a0if\u00a0<\/span><\/span>successfully<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>challenged in court.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a big deal. It\u2019s a really big deal,\u201d said Brad Brooks, acting senior director of agency policy and planning at The Wilderness Society<\/a>. \u201cIt will forever change government transparency and the opportunity for the public to have a say.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read on for a breakdown of the impact of these revisions on public commenting and beyond.<\/p>\n

What type of information do I have to provide when commenting? <\/strong><\/h2>\n

The revised rules ask people to provide \u201csubstantive\u201d comments supported by existing research, though the new language isn\u2019t specific about how much or exactly what type of information would meet the threshold.<\/p>\n

The new rules for commenting make it tougher for certain groups of people to participate in the environmental review process, said Todd Wildermuth, policy director of the University of Washington\u2019s Regulatory Environmental Law & Policy Clinic.<\/p>\n

It changes the playing field, he said. Now in order to comment, someone may have to be an expert, find an expert or have access to scientific articles, many of which cost money. This creates a lack of access for people who don\u2019t have the time, money or expertise.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou might be streamlining entire populations right out of participation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Because the language is broad, Brooks said it opens the door for agencies to throw out comments based on their own discretion.<\/p>\n

Andrea Woods, spokesperson for CEQ, the federal agency that enforces NEPA, confirmed in an email to the Co-op Journal that agencies will have flexibility in determining whether a comment meets the threshold to be considered. However, she said it\u2019s not meant to limit public comment but rather to guide commenters in providing information that is useful for decision-making.<\/p>\n

Woods didn’t provide specifics on the amount of information commenters must provide.<\/p>\n

Brooks said he worries the new language could also allow agencies to overlook comments not rooted in science. For example, a tribal community might have a religious, not scientific, reason for speaking out against a project being built on Native land, Brooks said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt creates a very high bar for [people] to even meet the threshold for the government to even consider what they\u2019re saying,\u201d Brooks said.<\/p>\n

Will the frequency of comment periods change? <\/strong><\/h2>\n

The revised language doesn\u2019t limit the number of comment periods for any one project, but new guidelines could ultimately change how many proposed projects require an environmental review.<\/p>\n

Depending on the project, there are typically two types of documents created for environmental reviews: environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. Environmental assessments are usually reserved for projects where it\u2019s unclear whether there will be a major environmental impact. They require a 30-day comment period. Environmental impact statements are typically required for large projects, like the development of major energy plants, and are followed by a 60- to 90-day comment period.<\/p>\n

However, under the new rules, agencies can develop new categories of projects that don\u2019t require an environmental review at all.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt will mean fewer opportunities for people to comment and also the government won\u2019t have to disclose [certain information],\u201d Brooks said.<\/p>\n

What about the duration of comment periods? <\/strong><\/h2>\n

The duration of the comment periods won\u2019t change; however, the public will be limited to commenting within the prescribed comment period. New language <\/a>mandates that comments made after a comment period\u2014including during litigation\u2014be forfeited.<\/p>\n

Previously, people could notify an agency of their inability to participate in a set public comment period and were able to submit comments after the deadline to be considered.<\/p>\n

Will the revisions alter the way I can submit comments? <\/strong><\/h2>\n

CEQ has updated NEPA to ask that agencies <\/a>use electronic means<\/a> when requesting public comments or distributing information about a proposed project. However, printed documentation will still be available for those who don\u2019t have access to a computer or other technology.<\/p>\n

How will environmental impact statements and environmental assessments change? How does it affect me?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Environmental assessments and environmental impact statements have page limits under the revised rules. They will be capped at 75 and 150 pages, respectively. Woods said the limits were decided to ensure documents are a reasonable length and in a readable format. Additionally, the revisions state that environmental assessments be completed within one year and environmental impact statements be completed within two.<\/p>\n

The original NEPA rules suggested the same page lengths for environmental assessments and impact statements. Unlike the new language, however, these suggestions were flexible.<\/p>\n

\u201cReinforcing the original page limits will encourage agencies to identify relevant issues, focus on significant environmental impacts, and prepare concise, readable documents that will inform decision makers as well as the public,\u201d Woods said.<\/p>\n

On average across all federal agencies, environmental impact statements have been nearly 700 pages and taken about 4.5 years to create<\/a>. However, less than 1%<\/a>\u00a0of proposed projects rise to the level of requiring an environmental impact statement.<\/p>\n

Brooks, with The Wilderness Society, said less paperwork isn\u2019t necessarily a bad thing, but that a page limit could limit agencies from including important information in their environmental reviews.<\/p>\n

“What are you going to do if there\u2019s a NEPA document that\u2019s trying to explain the consequences of a controversial project \u2026 but you hit your 200-page limit?\u201d he said. \u201cHow are you going to thoroughly explain the consequences or thoroughly explain what\u2019s happening?\u201d<\/p>\n

Will there be a price to comment?<\/h2>\n

No, there remains no price for commenting.<\/p>\n

However, under the new language, agencies could choose to impose a bond on an individual or organization if the agency has to delay a project in order to consider its environmental impact. CEQ didn\u2019t answer questions from the Co-op Journal in February about how much those bonds could be.<\/p>\n

Brooks said this will especially impact working-class people who may not have the money to pay a bond.<\/p>\n

“The people who are impacted by the polluters are not the top 1% \u2026 it\u2019s the working-class American,\u201d he said. \u201cThose are the people who will not be able to hold their government accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Learn more: The Six Environmental Rollbacks You Need to Know About<\/a><\/p>\n<\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration last month finalized sweeping revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), putting new boundaries on the public review process created by the landmark environmental law. It\u2019s the latest in a series of more than 100 environmental rewrites \u00a0made since President Donald Trump took office in 2016. Created in 1970, NEPA has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14208,"featured_media":161960,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[685],"tags":[795,846,727,2028,656],"internal-tag":[],"class_list":["post-161958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-climate-change","tag-environment","tag-latest-posts","tag-nepa","tag-public-lands"],"parsely":{"version":"1.1.0","canonical_url":"https:\/\/rei.com\/blog\/news\/a-major-environmental-law-just-changed-heres-what-you-need-to-know","smart_links":{"inbound":0,"outbound":0},"traffic_boost_suggestions_count":0,"meta":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","headline":"A Major Environmental Law Just Changed. Here\u2019s What You Need to Know.\u00a0","url":"http:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/a-major-environmental-law-just-changed-heres-what-you-need-to-know","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/news\/a-major-environmental-law-just-changed-heres-what-you-need-to-know"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2020\/08\/NEPA.jpg?resize=150%2C150","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/www.rei.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2020\/08\/NEPA.jpg?fit=2000%2C1349"},"articleSection":"News","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Sarah Grothjan"}],"creator":["Sarah Grothjan"],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Uncommon Path \u2013 An REI Co-op Publication","logo":""},"keywords":["climate change","environment","latest posts","nepa","public lands"],"dateCreated":"2020-08-14T19:17:30Z","datePublished":"2020-08-14T19:17:30Z","dateModified":"2020-09-24T14:28:58Z"},"rendered":"