Comments on proposed changes to the Federal National Environmental Policy Act due Tuesday March 10th

The law and review process was created out of a clear need in response to federal financial support of "urban renewal" and highways, which often had deleterious impact on historic buildings and communities.

Basically, the law requires that "federal undertakings," those led by federal agencies or funded in large part by the federal government are required to undertake an environmental process, which provides opportunities for public comment and a rigorous review process.

-- Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Register
-- "Proposed NEPA Regulation Overhaul: Next Steps and What Matters for Public Agencies," JD Supra
-- "NEPA Overhaul? CEQ Proposes Significant Changes to Federal Environmental Review," National Law Review
-- "Trump’s Move Against Landmark Environmental Law Caps a Relentless Agenda," New York Times
-- "Trump’s Weakening of Environmental Rules Would Leave the Public in the Dark," New York Times

Personally, I do think there are some issues with the environmental review process, which tends to take years, and has often been "weaponized" in that it enables lawsuits to drag out processes for years and years.

For example, the EIA for dealing with dogs in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is over 1200 pages, and because removal of a tree can trigger an EIA, local governments will "satisfice" projects such as for bike lanes, resulting in a less optimal outcome, in order to bypass review.

(In Baltimore County when I worked there, they wouldn't use federal Safe Routes to Schools monies because of the reporting requirements.  They said it was just cheaper to do the project with local money.)

But I am not sure how to structure comments about that aspect of the law and regulatory process.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice are among the organizations that have created webpages explaining their reservations with the proposed changes and offer forms for submitting comments.

WE ACT's concerns are:

• limits to public participation
• eliminating consideration of cumulative effects of a project
• expanding the type and range of projects not subject to review