At a Glance

The plan includes a 21-month limit on environmental reviews, down from five to 10 years.It also designatesa single agency to oversee the review and requiresthatall other agencies sign off on the review.States would becomemore responsible for environmental reviews of some projects under the plan.

The Trump administration has asked Congress to cut environmental review proceduresas part of its $1.5 trillion infrastructure proposal, a plan that makes no mention of climate change.

Thereleased Monday calls on Congress to eliminate "inefficiencies" by implementing a "one agency, one decision" program instead of the half dozenor so agencies responsible for giving the green light to infrastructure projects today.

Nowhere in the lengthy proposal are the words“climate,” “warming" or “disaster” mentioned, threats that are responsible for much of the deterioration ofthe nation's infrastructure, particularly in coastal regions.

The Trump administration sees the request to cut "duplicative" environmental review procedures as an answer to on-going complaints that environmental rules like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) impede infrastructure projects and hinder economic growth.

"These manyhoops affect the ability of project sponsors to construct projectsin a timely and cost-effective manner," the administration wrote.

The plan includes a 21-month limit on environmental reviews, down from five to 10 years. It also designatesa single agency to oversee the review andrequiresthatall other agencies sign off on the findings.

Under the plan, states would assume responsibility on some environmental reviews, taking it out of federal hands and eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to object to projects based on pollution concerns.

Finally, the Trump administration asks Congress to authorize "pilot programs through which agencies may experiment with innovative approaches to environmental reviews while enhancing environmental protection."

"For too long, lawmakers have invested in infrastructure inefficiently, ignored critical needs, and allowed it to deteriorate. As a result, the United States has fallen further and further behind other countries," the administration wrote. "It is time to give Americans the working, modern infrastructure they deserve."

(MORE:)

In response to a 2015, which reiterated much of what the Trump administration is proposing,released a June 2017 report that said state regulations, rather than federal ones,are frequently the cause of delays in getting the green light for projects. It also noted that determining when a project is delayed can be tricky.

"The fact that a given project took years to move from initiation (i.e., the identification of a problem that needed to be solved) to construction does not mean that it was delayed," the report says.

Trump's proposed infrastructure plan does not sit well with environmental organizations.

“This is a bill designed to eliminate environmental protections and fork over billions in taxpayer dollars to big corporations that have been dressed up as an ‘infrastructure proposal’ to trick the public," Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club, told weather.com Tuesday. "This is not a serious proposal to make the investments America’s infrastructure needs — this is a scam designed to gut clean air, water, and wildlife protections, transform public highways and bridges into privately owned toll roads, and sell off America's public lands."

Joshua Saks, legislative director for the National Wildlife Federation, told weather.com that he way to hasten the development of infrastructure projects is to adequately fund them.

"Using an infrastructure bill as an excuse to undermine bedrock environmental laws that ensure projects don’t harm wildlife, pollute water or negatively impact the public is not the answer," Saks said.

“It’s also important to remember that NEPA is not only an environmental statutebut is also the law that ensures public participation and input into local development," he added. "While eliminating the public process may hasten project development, it certainly will not lead to the best projects for the local community in the end. NEPA gives citizens a voice, and it must be protected.”