Activity Report Explorer

Polly Dyer – Seattle • Entered by Penelope Peterson on December 31, 2023

Wrote a Comments Letter for Proposed Revisions to NEPA

September 29, 2023 – September 29, 2023

Key Issue: Multiple apply
Activity Type: Advocacy (rallies, lobbying, meeting decision makers, letters/calls/emails)
Key Partners: Other Broadband Leaders who attended the National Leadership Rendezvous in September

Measurable Outcomes

Outcome 1: Advocacy actions (1 letters/postcards)

Short Description of Activity

I attended the National Leadership Rendezvous in September. During the Rendezvous, Mary O’Brien and Audrey Glendenning tutored us on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Mary urged each of us to write a comments letter on proposed revisions to NEPA Regulations, and she provided us with a detailed handout on what we might include in the letter. When I returned home, I wrote such a letter and submitted it to the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Reflection/Evaluation

Below submitted my letter to the Council, I sent the letter to Mary O’Brien to see if she had suggestions. Mary responded that it was “great” that I gave my own personal examples as rationales for my comments. She had no suggestions for revisions and said, “Send it in!” so I did.

Penelope L. Peterson, Broadband Leader
Polly Dyer Seattle Great Old Broads for Wilderness
3514 E Conover Ct.
Seattle, WA 98122

September 29, 2023

The Honorable Brenda Mallory
Chair, Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
Docket Number 2023-0003

Dear Chair Mallory,

I lead the Seattle Chapter of the Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and I write now on behalf of our Broadband to provide comments on the Proposed NEPA Regulations Revisions.

First, thank you for proposing to repeal the (Trump) 2020 version of 1500.1 As an informed group of citizens, we want to not only be informed about the NEPA decision-making process, but also participate in the process. However, we note that the proposal at 1502.15(b) retains the change in the (Trump) 2020 version that removed the word, “always” from the 1986 regulation that read: “When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement, and there is incomplete information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.” We oppose omitting the word, “always” here.

Second, we support your suggested revisions to 1502.14, 1502.15, and 1502.16 (a)(7), in which you propose that NEPA analyze alternatives to climate change-related effects and identify environmentally preferable alternatives, including its climate change effects. Also agencies should use high-quality information including the best available science and data to describe reasonably foreseeable environmental trends, Including anticipated climate-related changes to the environment. And as proposed for 1502. 16, the environmental consequences section . . . shall include . . .any reasonably foreseeable climate-change related effects, including the effects of climate change on the proposed action and alternatives.

In addition, we support including climate change in the definitions of “effects” and “extraordinary circumstances.” We refer here to proposed revisions in 1508.1 (g) and 1508.1 (m).

Consideration of possible climate change-related effects became increasingly important this past year as we witnessed worldwide devastation due to increased flooding, rampant wildfires and more severe storms than ever before. The severity of such climate change-related effects came home to me personally a year ago when my brother’s house was nearly demolished by Hurricane Ian as the hurricane unexpectedly made landfall in Fort Myers Beach, Florida. My brother remained in his home throughout the hurricane, and his wife and he were fortunate enough to survive, but others in his neighborhood were not. In addition, all the restaurants on the beach and hotels on the beach were destroyed. Before my brother’s experience with Hurricane Ian, I was concerned about climate change, but now I believe even more firmly that we need to take climate-change related effects into account whenever an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is done.

Third, we support the proposed changes with regard to mitigation as detailed in proposed 1505.2 (c) and 1505.3 (c). We support enforceable mitigation measures when an EIS or EA relies on mitigation measures in their analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the project. We also support preparation of a monitoring and compliance plan when an EA or EIS relies on mitigation as it is very important to assess the actual consequences of project implementation.

The need for greater attention to mitigation and enforcement of mitigation measures became apparent to our Broadband recently when we discussed the plan to build an asphalt plant on the Cedar River in Renton, WA, near where one of our members lives. The asphalt plant is likely to pollute the Cedar River, which supplies the water from most of the city of Renton and surrounding communities. This will also affect the fish in the river which is a concern to local tribes. In addition, asphalt plants are susceptible to fires, and if a fire were to break out at the plant, no means would exist to extinguish the fire. Such a situation points out the need to put “teeth” into any mitigation measures suggested if an EIS or EA were done on such a project.

Related to proposed changes with regard to mitigation, we believe that monitoring and enforcement of “project design features” need to be required. For example, the Forest Service and BLM routinely rely on EA “project design criteria,” “project design features,” and other formulations to escape the obligation to enforce such measures during project implementation. Although these measures are described as “part of” the project and therefore not “mitigation,” they still serve to limit the extent or duration of adverse effects and thus to support a finding of no significant impact. However, the agencies frequently waive many of these measures in project implementation. For example, a provision to replace failing culverts to offset sediment input to streams from upland vegetation removal may be waived if receipts from timber harvest are inadequate to fund culvert upgrades.

Fourth, we support the multiple provisions for tribal governments’ participation in NEPA. We support 1501.3 (d)(iv)(x) regarding tribal interests to consider. We also urge broadening 1501.3(d)(2)(iii) to read “sacred sites of Tribes and other indigenous communities.”

Two weeks ago, at a 2023 Great Old Broads National Leadership Rendezvous in the Canyon of the Ancients, we heard Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk speak eloquently on the need to involve the Tribes and other indigenous communities in discussions of environmental issues and concerns. As a member of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Towaoc, she indicated how indigenous communities are too often excluded from such discussions. Going forward, we advocate robust public involvement including significant inclusion of environmental justice communities, Tribes, and indigenous populations in all NEPA processes.

While we support many of the proposed revisions as indicated above, we oppose several of them as well. First, we oppose allowing an agency to avoid NEPA by claiming all effects will be beneficial (as in 1501.3(d)(2)(i). Both “beneficial” and adverse significant impacts in the past have been expected to trigger an EIS. An EIS might reveal alternatives that could lead to even more beneficial effects.

Second, we oppose any expansion of actions that can be taken on a project before the NEPA process for that project has been completed (as detailed in 1506.1). If actions were allowed before the NEPA process is completed, these actions might lead to a complete subversion of the purpose NEPA in the first place.

Third, we oppose the inclusion of “innovative approaches” in 1506.12. “Innovative approaches” might involve not submitting a proposal to public review and engagement, and we believe such transparency and opportunity for public review are essential to our democracy.

We hope that you will consider seriously our above suggestions and concerns. Thank you so much for providing this opportunity for us to comment on the proposed NEPA Regulations Revisions. We appreciate it.

Sincerely yours,

Penelope L. Peterson
Polly Dyer Seattle Broadband Leader
Great Old Broads for Wilderness