Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Westerman-Golden Bipartisan SPEED Act draws backing from industry groups

October 28, 2025 — A bipartisan proposal to revise federal environmental review procedures is drawing support from technology companies, trade associations, local officials, and utilities, according to statements released by the House Natural Resources Committee.

H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was introduced by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). The measure targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a procedural statute that set the framework for assessing environmental impacts of major federal actions and created the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA’s requirements apply broadly to federally linked activities, including construction of roads, bridges, highways, ports, irrigation systems, forest management projects, transmission lines, energy developments, broadband, and water infrastructure.

NEPA was enacted to ensure that federal agencies consider environmental consequences before taking major actions. Over time, the process has become increasingly complex, extending permitting timelines and increasing costs for public and private projects. Critics of the current system argue that it has evolved into a cumbersome process that special interest groups sometimes use to delay or block infrastructure projects through litigation. The SPEED Act seeks to address those concerns by streamlining review procedures and reducing the frequency of lawsuits while maintaining the requirement that environmental impacts be considered.

Supporters from sectors such as advanced computing and data centers point to power and transmission needs; energy producers and public power entities cite grid reliability and long planning horizons; construction and electrical contractors emphasize predictable schedules; and forestry and logging groups link delays to slower forest management and wildfire risk. Commercial space and conservation-policy organizations also register support, citing modernization and clearer processes.

Commercial fisheries are among the sectors affected by NEPA’s procedural requirements. Fishery management actions under the Magnuson–Stevens Act—such as plan amendments, quota specifications, and implementing regulations—are treated as major federal actions and typically require environmental assessments or impact statements. Standardizing timelines and simplifying documentation could reduce uncertainty in the council and agency decision process without altering the substantive conservation standards that govern federal fisheries.

Litigation is another recurring factor in fishery management. NEPA claims are often filed alongside Magnuson–Stevens Act claims when stakeholders challenge plan amendments or annual specifications. Even when agencies prevail, litigation risk can slow implementation and absorb staff resources. The SPEED Act’s provisions to clarify what constitutes a “major federal action,” set limits on judicial review periods, and streamline documentation are presented by supporters as measures that could help agencies move science-based fishery decisions to implementation more predictably.

 The SPEED Act would update NEPA by: 

– Shortening review timelines and reducing litigation frequency.

– Simplifying analyses required in NEPA documents to lessen agency workload.

– Clarifying when NEPA applies by refining the definition of “major federal action.”

– Setting judicial review limits for NEPA claims, including a 150-day filing deadline, a new standard of review, and constraints on procedural maneuvers that can halt projects.

Organizations listed as supporters include Google; OpenAI; the AI Supply Chain Alliance; the American Forest Resource Council; Associated General Contractors of America; Associated Oregon Loggers; the Commercial Space Federation; ConservAmerica; the Huerfano County (Colo.) Board of County Commissioners; the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association; Minnesota Forest Industries; Missouri River Energy Services (which also backs a related bill, H.R. 4503); the National Electrical Contractors Association and several of its regional chapters; and the Utah Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Press release: https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BB6YBW3BL6RVCAERSA4FZWNLFQ

House Committee on Natural Resources: Nightmares of NEPA

April 25, 2018 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today at 2:00 PM EST, the Full Committee will meet to examine the weaponization of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the implication of environmental lawfare.

Originally designed as a tool to protect the environment, NEPA has become a tool of obstruction, and in many cases, ironically, has caused more harm than good for the environment. Litigation activists, extreme environmentalists and special interest groups will do everything in their power to stop, delay or restrict federal projects, and the avenue created by the vague and ambiguous language of NEPA is their go-to weapon of choice in the courts.

Excessive lawsuits have led federal agencies to make environmental analysis documents “bullet-proof,” in fear of litigation. This “analysis paralysis” approach is costly to American taxpayers, lengthy and overall prevents critical projects from getting off the ground. Our nation’s environmental review and permitting process takes significantly longer than other Western democracies with comparable, stringent environmental protections. Germany, Canada and Australia are all able to approve most major infrastructure projects within TWO YEARS. Why should a developer invest in American projects or infrastructure where the threat of litigation and delay is so great, when they can go elsewhere? NEPA doesn’t just impact oil and gas development, but also renewable energy projects, infrastructure, water shortages in the West, and proper forest management to prevent catastrophic wildfires.

NEPA → Foreign Dependency on Energy

Earlier this year, our friends in New England received a late Christmas present from the Kremlin: Russian Natural Gas. The reason? A lack of infrastructure and pipelines to transport domestic energy. As long as extreme environmental groups continue to weaponize NEPA and halt energy infrastructure projects, our nation will continue to be dependent on foreign energy.

NEPA → Exacerbates the Western Water Crisis & Aging Infrastructure

The construction of desperately needed water infrastructure projects in the West is at a standstill. Why? NEPA. And because of this, we have a water supply today that falls short of meeting today’s need.

In one instance, it’s taken the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 16 years and counting to study and approve the proposed Sites Reservoir, a new 1.8 million-acre-foot off-stream reservoir in northern California. Throughout the process, 52 alternative locations for the reservoir have been evaluated.  This potential project – along with others in the state – continue to be subject to seemingly endless studies necessitated by burdensome NEPA requirements more than a decade after they were initiated. Californians are still waiting for this project to be approved, while the opportunity to increase smart surface water storage remains gridlocked under environmental review.

NEPA → Wildfires

Lawson Fite, General Counsel of the American Forest Resource Council, who testified before the Committee last year, argues that a large percentage of lawsuits aren’t targeted as specific legal violations, but are instead used by self-proclaimed “environmental groups” to halt or prevent forest restoration activities.

Just last year, an extreme environmental organization used NEPA as a tool to sue and subsequently stop fire mitigation projects in Lincoln, Montana. Two wildfires ignited weeks later.

Learn more about the House Committee on Natural Resources by visiting their site here.

 

Recent Headlines

  • National Fisheries Institute Welcomes Release of 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
  • Black sea bass tagging study tracks shifting range in MA waters
  • Seafood sales for 2026 and beyond expected to benefit from health, protein trends
  • MAINE: How fisheries in Maine are restructuring amid warming waters
  • A rare whale is having an encouraging season for births. Scientists warn it might still go extinct.
  • Could moon snails, neon flying squid fisheries save the scallop industry? Some local scientists are hopeful
  • Op-ed: A momentous US Supreme Court decision
  • US lawmakers include funding for fish conservation, hatcheries, and battling invasive carp in Department of the Interior budget bill

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2026 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions