A couple of comments:

First, a correction: NEPA applies to all "major" actions in which the federal goverment plays a role, not just on federal land as the article states. So for example a state highway project using federal dollars is required to comply with NEPA.

I also take issue with the statement that "NEPA strives to bring every concerned party to the table." Maybe in some cases this is true, but in my experience NEPA has become a hoop that gov't employees and contractors are trained and paid to jump through. NEPA does have some public notification provisions but the work is generally not very collaborative.

That said, I think it's a shame NEPA is being set up for a hit. The interesting thing about NEPA is that it doesn't require you to choose the "greenest" alternative to an action, and actually doesn't require anyone to change their plans at all. What is does require is for the goverment to disclose the environmental effects of a proposed action before it breaks any ground. In many ways its the ultimate democratic environmental law - it says that the people have a right to know how their money is being spent and what the environmental effects will be. So it's not surprising that some in Congress want to squash it - without full disclosure it's a lot easier to get wasteful, environmentally destructive projects done.

Thanks, Grist, for bringing this story to light. Some out there may be interested in the cover story of the latest High Country News - it's all about Rep. Pombo (initiator of the NEPA task force), including revelations that his anti-environmental crusade is less based on personal experiences and more on satisfying his campaign contributors.