Oppose the Rollback of 50 Years of Environmental Protections

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one of the most important statutes we have to protect birds and communities from the dangers of pollution and other environmental harm. Birds across the nation, from Burrowing Owls to Baltimore Orioles, have benefited from this bedrock law.  

Now, NEPA is in jeopardy. The White House Council on Environmental Quality has proposed a rule to roll back nearly 50 years of regulations that have been issued to implement NEPA.

Habitat and public health are at risk of being sacrificed if we lose this bedrock environmental law. 

Sign our petition today to tell the White House not to dismantle NEPA regulations. The deadline to comment is March 27.

Note: Audubon will send your comment, along with your first name, city, and state to the Council on Environmental Quality as part of the official comment period, and it will become part of the public record.

Baltimore Oriole. Photo: Linda Scher/Audubon Photography Awards

---------------------------------------------------------------
I oppose the proposed rule withdrawing CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations. CEQ's NEPA regulations provide certainty to project sponsors, impacted communities, and over 85 federal agencies. By requiring implementing regulations from each agency, this rule will delay projects, increase compliance costs, reduce transparency, and worsen environmental outcomes for birds and communities. 

I have serious concerns about removing the requirement to assess cumulative impacts, which is firmly rooted in the statutory text of NEPA. Without this analysis, agencies may make decisions which on their own do not pose serious environmental risks, but taken together are environmentally detrimental. This change undermines consideration of project contributions to large-scale environmental problems, like climate change or deforestation. With 3 billion birds lost from North America in the last 50 years and nearly two-thirds at risk from climate change, this is no time to ignore the effects of decisions. Any rule barring cumulative analysis is unlawful. 

This rule limits consideration of environmental justice, which will reduce public input and create worse outcomes for historically disenfranchised communities, running afoul of the principles affirmed in NEPA. 

Finally, I am deeply concerned about allowing private entities to prepare environmental review documents without sufficient oversight. This will reduce the objectivity of environmental reviews, threatening birds and critical ecosystems.  

NEPA is a bedrock environmental law that informs science-based, transparent, and accountable decision-making. This proposed rule would weaken those vital standards. Thank you for considering my comments.