Will damage, impact, and risk assessment get “DOGE’d”?

[co-author: Pieter Booth]*

President Trump’s January 31, 2025, executive order (EO), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) February 25 interim final rule removing CEQ regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Code of Federal Regulations set the US environment on a new and highly uncertain path ¹. Effective April 11, 2025, CEQ's interim final rule removes its NEPA regulations, including 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, which federal agencies and developers have relied on for permitting projects since the 1970s ². The impact of these actions extends far beyond NEPA.

Eliminating CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA signifies a broader deregulation agenda targeting environmental laws and fueling anti-science rhetoric that portrays federal agencies as imposing unnecessary and costly demands on the regulated community. Damage, impact, and risk assessments are fundamental components of the NEPA process and crucial foundations for a broader range of laws governing contaminated sites, environmental thresholds for chemicals in air, groundwater, soil, and water, and the safeguarding of public health. The long and tumultuous history of often heated debates regarding the role of risk assessment in regulatory decision-making ³ indicates that damage, impact, and risk assessments may be among the unnecessary burdens likely to come under scrutiny by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

A Changing Foundation for Risk-Based Decision-Making

Historically, environmental assessments - damage, impact, and risk assessments - have embodied five fundamental principles of U.S. environmental policy since the 1970s:

1. Preventive action through risk and impact assessment before harm occurs,

2. The polluter pays principle applied to ascertain the damage after harm occurs,

3. The public's right to know, ensured through transparent investigation and evaluation processes,

4. Evidence-based decision-making using standardized scientific methodologies, and

5. Careful balancing of economic development and environmental stewardship through systematic planning.

One or more of these guiding principles is destined for change. The likelihood of a rollback of various environmental regulatory requirements is inevitable, as evidenced by the actions taken to date by the DOGE under the direction of the Trump Administration. This rollback will affect longstanding federal rules, years of continuous funding, and the employment of thousands of federal employees. A case in point is the EPA's reported plans to dismantle the Office of Research and Development ⁴, the agency’s primary source of scientific research supporting interpretations of pollution effects on human health and the environment, raising concerns about the future of environmental protections and public health.

If true, what might this mean? The issuance of permits for infrastructure and activities without sufficient examination, businesses and public trustees incurring avoidable liabilities, and public health actions that unnecessarily endanger the health and well-being of communities and the environment. The value of damage, impact, and risk assessments to environmental decision-making is likely to be “DOGE’d” – i.e., regarded as an unnecessary expenditure of the government’s time and resources. Here’s a brief look at the “big 3” assessment methods and what the scientific consulting, regulated, and legal communities might expect.

The Big Three Assessments

In simple terms, damage assessments describe what has happened in the past; impact assessments examine the likely effects of projects and development proposals in the present; and risk assessments anticipate what might happen in the future. Applied to natural resources, damage assessments are driven by active or anticipated claims from designated federal and state agencies and Indian Tribes acting as trustees on behalf of the public to assess and restore injured natural resources. In contrast, impact and risk assessments are driven by regulations, typically as conditions for issuing permits or receiving approval for cleanup actions.

These big three assessment methodologies enlist experts from science, engineering, economics, and public policy, frequently from consulting and academia, to gather information using various investigative tools, statistical models, and geospatial simulations. Experts provide science and fact-based opinions on the plausible environmental consequences, relying on their own work and, at times, the work of others. The legal community uses these work products to engage with the government and third parties to resolve interpretations of law and public safety.

Damage assessment

Several laws invoke a damage assessment methodology to evaluate and compensate for injuries to the public’s natural resources and shared goods and services. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) establishes procedures for Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) in cases of oil spills. CERCLA/Superfund authorizes trustees to assess damages to natural resources resulting from hazardous substance releases. The Clean Water Act (CWA) grants authority for damage assessments following water contamination caused by pollutant discharges. The Park System Resource Protection Act (PSRPA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) outline damage assessment methodologies used to evaluate the extent of injuries to cultural, natural, and developed resources in national parks, as well as the protected sanctuary resources in marine areas, respectively ⁵.

Many in Congress fear that significant staffing cuts to the EPA and the Department of Interior will sharply diminish federal oversight of hazardous waste facilities, as well as the investigation and remediation of contaminated sites and oil spills ⁶. This reduction is likely to hinder the ability of federal resource trustees to conduct NRDAs and take part in joint assessments and settlement negotiations, thereby shifting much of the burden onto state and tribal trustees.

Impact assessment

CEQ regulations applicable to NEPA require federal agencies to evaluate the economic, ecological, and social aspects of federally funded projects that might significantly affect the environment ⁷. The White House and a Republican-led Congress argue that the federal government has been slow to review and approve major resource and infrastructure development initiatives despite the previous Administration’s pledge to expedite the federal permitting process ⁸. According to the CEQ, from 2021 to 2024, the NEPA process took 2.5 years from the Notice of Intent to the Record of Decision ⁹. This duration is not swift enough for the new Administration’s environmental policies, prompting proposed changes that would require decision-making on environmental assessments within 1 year and on environmental impact statements within 2 years ¹⁰.

In particular, the Trump Administration has instructed federal agencies to expedite the review and approval of major projects involving offshore oil and gas development, renewable resources, critical minerals, and possibly a revived nuclear power industry ¹¹. A faster permitting process is almost certain to diminish the thoroughness of environmental impact assessments. History shows that time constraints and pressures to expedite approvals result in less comprehensive ecological considerations, raising valid concerns about the possibility of overlooking significant environmental consequences ¹².

Risk assessment

At Administrator Zeldin’s direction, the EPA is taking steps to roll back 31 environmental regulations ¹³. Risk assessment plays a role in the decision-making process for the majority of the announced rollbacks. Notable are changes proposed to the process historically used to conduct chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), signaling a significant shift in the traditional role of risk assessors in chemical regulation ¹⁴. TSCA and FIFRA mandate that the EPA performs risk assessments for new and existing chemicals and pesticides, respectively. The rollbacks and suspended rules affecting the enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) will likely diminish the demand for new or updated risk assessments that establish risk-based standards for air pollutants and contaminants in drinking water. The commitment to the EPA’s 2021 strategic plan, which addresses the ubiquitous presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), remains, as described by Harvard University, in a dynamic state ¹⁵.

In fact, regulations governing a large number of chemicals are already woefully out of sync with current science. Rollbacks and suspended rules are unlikely to encourage efforts to modernize the underlying science in chemical risk assessments. Elimination of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) ¹⁶ and overhaul of the agency’s science advisory boards won’t help either ¹⁷. IRIS develops Tier 1 chemical toxicity benchmarks, primarily human health, for use in the hazard and exposure steps in risk assessment applications. States may rely on downloads of the stagnant IRIS system, turn to other sources of exposure and toxicology values, or develop their own, leading to further regulatory variation among states.

Aside from removing the terms “environmental justice” and “climate change” from the EPA’s lexicon, the changes in store for hazardous waste regulations and contaminated site cleanups remain largely unclear. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA/Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), health and ecological risk assessments are either required or recommended for hazardous waste facilities and contaminated sites ¹⁸.

The current regulatory freeze by the Trump Administration on certain environmental standards, particularly discharge limits for specific PFAS, hydrofluorocarbons used in refrigeration, and emissions from vehicles and power plants, is not unexpected. Any further restrictions on these and hundreds of other substances will significantly influence future risk assessments applied to toxic tort claims, the establishment of safe or threshold environmental limits, and the evaluation of new chemical uses ¹⁹.

What Might this Mean for the Regulated Community?

The uncertainties facing the regulated community create both risks and opportunities. Over the past two decades, the push for environmental and social stewardship in multinational businesses has increasingly originated from shareholders, customers, and special interest groups, independent of regulatory forces. Let’s hope this behavior, largely influenced by global markets, remains unchanged.

That said, the regulated community will increasingly need to weigh the opportunities created by less regulatory pressure against the risks posed by the actual or perceived lowering of environmental and social standards and performance. Consider the case of an ongoing damage assessment delayed by federal staff and a diminished appetite for enforcement. This may be beneficial only to the extent that costs are avoided or deferred. It may also create opportunities for expedited settlement negotiations.

While DOGE has very limited, if any, influence on the regulatory actions of states and indigenous communities, NGOs and special interests may step in to fill the federal capacity gap. With relaxed federal oversight, responsible parties responding to CERCLA and RCRA requirements and resource developers engaging in the NEPA process should pay closer attention to the risks of potentially costly third-party litigation. Settlement negotiations may gain new importance as an alternative non-governmental regulatory process for environmental and public health protections. This approach may help preserve the social license to operate and a positive public corporate image. These dynamics are essential in impact assessments and contaminated site cleanups.

Environmental assessments won’t vanish entirely. Although institutional knowledge at federal agencies may be “DOGE’d,” companies and their legal counsel with the foresight to consider the long-term consequences of their actions will endure. Fortune 100 companies have weathered political changes for over a century. Business and government policies should transcend politics. The need for resource stewardship in the face of scarcity and the growing likelihood of a future transition to a global biophysical economy ²⁰ will demand the insights that environmental assessors provide.

*Net Gain Ecological Services LLC, Shelton, Washington, US

FOOTNOTES:

1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-prosperity-through-deregulation/; FedReg. 90(36):10610, February 25, 2025.
2. 40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 1508.
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6366000/
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/climate/trump-eliminates-epa-science.html
5. 15 CFR Part 990 and Section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, codified in 33 U.S.C. § 2706; Section 107(f) codified in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and 43 CFR Part 11 Department of Interior regulations guiding the NRDA process under CERCLA; Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1321); Section 312 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act codified in 16 U.S.C. § 1443; Section 100723(b) of the Park System Resource Protection Act (PSRPA).
6. Letter to Lee Zeldin, USEPA Administrator from Valeria P. Foushee et al. dated March 12 2025 https://foushee.house.gov/imo/media/doc/foushee_casten_letter_to_epa_administrator_on_potential_cuts.pdf.
7. Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1508.1) mandates that federal agencies prepare an environmental assessment, an environmental impact statement, or categorical exclusion for major Federal actions specified in 40 CFR 1508.1 that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
8. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/10/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-
   outlines-priorities-for-building-americas-energy-infrastructure-faster-safer-and-cleaner/
9. Executive Office of the President Council On Environmental Quality , January13, 2025; https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/nepa-
   practice/CEQ%20EIS%20Timelines%20Report%20Release_01_13_2025.pdf
10. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.10 (2025).
11. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/;
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-american-energy/;
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-alaskas-extraordinary-resource-potential/;
12. https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/nepa25fn.pdf.
13. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history.
14. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-chemical-reviews-protect-public-health-increase-
    efficiency#:~:text=In%20this%20rulemaking%2C%20EPA%20will,on%20any%20new%2C%20proposed%20rule.
15. https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/pfas-and-the-epa-strategic-roadmap-progress-and-challenges/
16. https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/9/79c5d50c-382b-47bb-8b29-
    a9184530058b/CA9D289633FA30265A5D9717A3E6E373B3AAF32F087E91942AB5A6315B65A8A5.maz25082.pdf.
17. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/presidents-council-of-advisors-on-science-and-technology/.
18. Sections 4, 5, and 6(b) of TSCA; Section 3 of FIFRA; Section 112 of the CAA; Section 1412 of the SDWA; RCRA
    guidance for hazardous waste determination under 40 C.F.R. § 261.11(a)(3); Section 106, Section 121(b)(1) and (d), and
    Section 121(c) of CERCLA.
19. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/regulatory-freeze-pending-review/.
20. Bartell, 2025. “Biophysical Economy: Theory, Challenges, and Sustainability.” ISBN #978-1032310794.