Send Your Letter on the Changes to NEPA by Monday, March 9

Posted On: 03/04/2020

Call to Action from the Coalition for American Heritage:

Write a letter to the Council on Environmental Quality!

Share your concerns about how the proposed changes to NEPA regulations could harm cultural resources throughout the country! The Coalition especially wants to highlight three main concerns:

1) New criteria that will result in fewer actions being subject to NEPA review
2) New rules unnecessarily limit public involvement
3) The alternatives analysis will be constrained and will lead to poor decision-making.

Use our sample letter as a jumping off point, then add your own experiences and data to personalize the text.  The deadline for comments is March 10th!

Ask Your Member of Congress to Speak Out on Proposed NEPA Changes!

Please contact your Representatives and Senators regarding the concerning changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) today. Ask them to support H Con Res 89, a bill urging the Trump Administration not to proceed with the proposed changes to NEPA.

How to Contact Congress: 

To call Congress, dial 202-224-3121 and request your Member of Congress by name. If you prefer to write a message, click on the blue “Send Message” button to send email to your Members of Congress.

Guidelines for Contacting Congress:

  1. Share your home address so the Congressmember knows you are a constituent.
  2. Explain why this issue matters to you. For example, say that you are a trained archaeologist or that you belong to a historic preservation organization.
  3. Outline your concerns about the proposed changes to NEPA and their impacts on cultural resources.
  4. Ask your Member of Congress to cosponsor H Con Res 89, a bill encouraging the Trump Administration to maintain NEPA protections

What Should You Say?

Here is a possible draft letter to address the NEPA concerns:

[DATE]

Re: Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Docket CEQ-2019-0003

Dear [Member of Congress],

I’m writing to express my serious concerns about the Council of Environmental Quality’s Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and to ask you to cosponsor H Con Res 89, which encourages the Trump Administration to maintain protections under NEPA.

[Explain what you or your organization does, and why you or it/its members care about the proposed changes to the NEPA regulations]

[I/We] are concerned that these proposed regulations are confusing and introduce undefined terms and concepts that will lead to more litigation, project delays, and increased project costs—the opposite of what the proposed regulations are intended to do.

[I/we] have three main concerns:

1) The proposed rule establishes new criteria that will result in fewer actions being subject to NEPA review; however, these criteria are very ambiguous and undefined, and may result in no NEPA review for actions that will have a significant effect on the human environment.
2) The new rules unnecessarily limit public involvement
3) For those projects subject to NEPA review, the alternatives analysis will be constrained and will lead to poor decision-making

The Proposed Rule Allows Agencies to Limit Arbitrarily the Applicability of NEPA

The draft rule proposes to create a new “threshold applicability analysis” with a new definition for “major federal action,” meant to limit the number of projects undergoing NEPA review. Not only are these new concepts inadequately defined, but CEQ has failed to provide guidance within the regulations for which projects would or would not meet this threshold. Introducing ambiguity into established regulations risks the predictability on which project proponents, agencies, and the public have come to rely when engaging for these projects.

In addition, allowing agencies to decide in their discretion and without any public process that certain projects are not subject to NEPA at all gives agencies too much discretion and will lead to arbitrary decision-making.

The Proposed Rule Unnecessarily Limits Public Involvement

[I/we] oppose limitations in the new regulations on the ability of the public to comment on the potential impacts of a project and provide information critical to agencies’ decision-making. These proposed regulations would limit the ability of the public to comment in several ways. For example, the regulations would only allow public comment on the “completeness” of the review, rather than the purpose and need of the project. Moreover, the arbitrary timelines for EAs and EISs will mean reduced opportunities for public comment. Objections to proposed alternatives would have to be made within 30 days of the notice of availability of the EIS or be waived. In addition, the new regulations would ban groups who did not publicly comment on the rule from pursuing litigation in court. The new regulations also encourage the use of bonds in court cases, where those seeking to bring a claim would have to put up money to get access to the court system. [I/we] oppose all of these limitations on public involvement, which is a cornerstone of NEPA and leads to better project outcomes.

The Proposed Rule Arbitrarily Limits Alternatives Analysis.

The draft regulations propose to limit both the number of alternatives analyses and the strength of those analyses, which will lead to poor decisions based on incomplete information. NEPA’s requirement to consider alternatives has led to better choices about project delivery and fewer impacts to the human environment. [INSERT ANY EXAMPLES WITH WHICH YOU ARE FAMILIAR] [I/we] oppose limiting the alternatives analysis to three options. Placing such a restriction would limit agencies in their consideration of alternatives that could avoid or minimize effects to resources and communities. [I/we] also disagree with [I/we] also disagree with CEQ’s redefining effects to remove distinctions between direct and indirect effects, using ambiguous and confusing effects terminology such as “reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonable close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives,” and removing consideration of cumulative effects completely. Doing so means that agencies will not consider many adverse effects that will impact communities, and will result in poor agency decisions based on incomplete information.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns about the proposed regulations.

Best regards,
[Signature]