The Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee in Laramie received a staff briefing on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and recent federal rulemaking changes on Oct. 17, 2025, and asked legislative counsel to prepare a short summary of a pending congressional bill affecting NEPA procedures.

Talise Hansen, staff attorney with the Legislative Service Office, presented a multi-page memo that traced NEPA's 1970 origin, the development of Council on Environmental Quality implementing rules, the Trump administration's 2020 revisions, the Biden administration's Phase 1 and Phase 2 responses, and legislative changes that arrived in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

Hansen told the committee that CEQ's 2024 Phase 2 rules implemented several provisions of the 2023 law — including new timing and page limits, a requirement to identify an environmentally preferable alternative earlier in the process, and changes to what constitutes a "major federal action." She also summarized litigation and administrative responses: some federal courts found CEQ lacked rulemaking authority and in 2025 the White House directed rescission; the Department of the Interior retained a subset of NEPA procedures (categorical exclusions, emergency response and applicant-prepared documents) and moved other guidance into departmental handbooks.

Why it matters: Committee members heard that the landscape for NEPA review has shifted in the last five years, with tighter timelines, new judicial scrutiny of CEQ authority and ongoing congressional proposals that would further limit litigation windows and clarify agency discretion.

Committee members and witnesses discussed specific proposals in Congress. Micah Christensen described how agencies and counties use NEPA tools such as cooperating-agency status and categorical exclusions to coordinate planning. He also described pending congressional measures, including a bipartisan proposal led by Rep. Bruce Westerman (the Speed Act), which would shorten the statute of limitations for NEPA challenges, set judicial deadlines and restrict review of speculative effects. Christensen said the Speed Act was a current, active proposal in Congress and that Representative Harriet Hageman's office was engaged on related work.

Public commenter Jim McGavin (Wyoming Stockgrowers Association) emphasized that litigation, not the statute's public‑policy purpose, has become the primary vehicle for blocking projects in the West. "It has become a gilded pathway to litigation," McGavin said, and he advised the committee that plaintiffs often file procedural NEPA suits that prolong projects.

Micah Christensen and other witnesses described draft elements of legislative proposals: statutory limits on litigation timelines and effects analyses, tightened review windows for courts, and clarifications on categorical exclusions and cooperating‑agency procedures. Christensen said some of those changes have bipartisan support in the U.S. House and that the Speed Act had received committee action earlier in September 2025.

Committee directive: By unanimous consent (no objection recorded), the committee asked LSO counsel Talise Hansen to prepare a one‑page summary of the Speed Act / Westerman bill and related federal rule changes and circulate it to legislators for informational purposes. Co‑chairs asked that the summary be available to committee members ahead of the next meeting and that it be shared with the broader legislator mailing list.

Ending: Committee members said they will use the summary as background when evaluating potential state or multistate responses to NEPA changes, and several members indicated interest in coordinating with other Western states to press for statutory changes that address litigation timing and agency discretion.