Today, Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Farmed Animal Advocacy Clinic (FAAC) submitted comments on behalf of their client, the Center for Biological Diversity, addressing the Council for Environmental Quality’s proposed Phase 2 rule changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The comments are narrowly focused to address the prolific and problematic use of categorical exclusions (CEs) by government agencies to avoid meaningful NEPA review.
Enacted in 1970, NEPA is often considered the first environmental protection statute. Its major requirement is that federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of their rules and regulations before they take effect.
The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ), which helps implement NEPA, issued new proposed rules for NEPA review including actions qualifying for a categorical exclusion. CEs traditionally applied to a category of activities that, either individually or cumulatively, did not have a significant impact on the human environment. These CEs were created to speed up the work of federal agencies and avoid wasting resources on tasks that were largely administerial in nature.
However, agencies have tremendously expanded their CEs over the years allowing activities that go far beyond clerical work to be categorically excluded from environmental assessment. Agencies have even created CEs for entire sub-agencies. One such sub-agency is the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) which oversees the production and slaughter of animals used for food at licensed facilities in the United States. Slaughterhouses have significant impacts on the human environment.
Over the years, FSIS has removed, or reduced restrictions, on slaughterhouse line speeds, thus allowing more farmed animals to be slaughtered each day. The more farmed animals that can be slaughtered each day increases both the number of animals raised on farms and the amount of processing that will occur. Both of these results have had significant impacts on the human environment through diminished air and water quality, increased noise pollution, increased risk of zoonotic diseases, and more nuisance issues—especially in environmental justice communities. However, FSIS has chosen not to address any of these environmental impacts since the sub-agency is categorically excluded.
The blanket exemption of FSIS from environmental impact reviews, especially of its work in slaughterhouses, illustrates the problem of including entire sub-agencies in CEs. As our comment states, CEs of entire sub-agencies should be prohibited.
FAAC student clinician, Jenna Kemmer (JD’24), along with pro bono counsel Jon Krois, helped draft, edit, and review the comments, which encourages CEQ to uphold NEPA as a bastion of environmental justice and accountability by cracking down on CEs.
As Jenna reflected on this experience in the FAAC she remarked, “Having the opportunity to work with the Center for Biological Diversity on public comments relating to NEPA not only enriched my understanding of environmental law but also underscored the profound intersectionality of animal protection and ecological justice. This hands-on experience has been instrumental in shaping my perspective, allowing me to advocate for the voiceless and contribute to meaningful change. It's a vivid reminder that the law is not just about statutes and regulations, it's about fostering a more compassionate and sustainable world for all."