Anonymous public comment

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed updates to its procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I am concerned that the proposed revisions would narrow the scope of environmental reviews in a way that weakens NEPA’s purpose of ensuring informed decision-making, public participation, and protection of communities and natural resources. NEPA was created to ensure that federal agencies carefully evaluate the environmental consequences of proposed actions before decisions are made. The law provides an important framework for understanding not only the immediate impacts of a project, but also how those impacts may contribute to broader environmental challenges. By limiting analysis to only the most direct and immediate effects of an agency action, the proposed rule risks overlooking cumulative and interconnected impacts that communities and ecosystems experience in reality. I am particularly concerned about the proposed limitation on considering environmental effects that are separate in time or place, outside an agency’s regulatory authority, or dependent on actions by third parties. Environmental impacts do not occur in isolation. Projects often influence future development patterns, resource use, pollution levels, and ecological conditions beyond the boundaries of the original action. Restricting NEPA reviews to a narrow set of direct impacts could prevent agencies from fully understanding the consequences of their decisions. This concern is especially significant for communities that already face multiple environmental burdens. Many communities experience overlapping challenges from air pollution, water contamination, climate impacts, and industrial development. A limited NEPA review process could make it more difficult to identify and address these cumulative impacts, potentially allowing additional environmental stressors to be placed on communities that are already disproportionately affected. The proposed changes may also reduce meaningful public participation. NEPA serves as an important opportunity for communities, Tribal Nations, local governments, and stakeholders to provide input and raise concerns about projects that may affect their health, livelihoods, and surroundings. A narrower review process may restrict the information available to the public and limit their ability to participate effectively in federal decision-making. While I recognize the need for efficient and timely environmental reviews, streamlining should not come at the expense of thorough analysis and community protections. A faster review process is not necessarily a better process if it results in incomplete consideration of environmental consequences or prevents agencies from making fully informed decisions. I urge the EPA to maintain a comprehensive approach to NEPA implementation that considers direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts when they are reasonably foreseeable. The agency should preserve NEPA as a tool for transparency, accountability, and environmental protection rather than adopting changes that narrow the information considered during federal decision-making.