Is the Public Being Heard?
Jennifer Anderson
The average, non-scientist wilderness lover who wants to be heard on a proposed public land-use project may wonder: Does it make any difference if I take advantage of the opportunity to submit my views? Sometimes it seems as if even overwhelming public opinion goes unheard, as in the case of snowmobiling in Yellowstone.
First, a primer by Mike Dombeck, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and chief of the U.S. Forest Service under President Clinton.
Federal agencies are required by law—primarily the National Environmental Policy Act—to seek and consider public comments on proposed actions affecting public land.
They are not required to alter or cancel proposals based on the majority view. If, for example, many comments on a project raise air quality concerns, the agency can still proceed, as long as it thoroughly analyzes the full range of impacts (good and bad), provides an opportunity for public input, and explains the rationale for the decision. Even so, said Dombeck, if the vast majority of comments disagree with a proposal, most decision makers would be inclined to rethink their objectives.
Most citizens are unable to produce technical analysis of potential ramifications that the agency may not have considered. But they usually are able to write about or discuss, at a public hearing, their feelings about the place under review and which management option would be best. They also can simply submit a form letter, usually produced by an environmental group. “Such letters, even if they include well-researched findings by professionals, can be treated as just one comment,” warns Leslie Jones, general counsel for The Wilderness Society. “That’s why we always urge people to personalize them with additional thoughts.”
One illustration of the potential impact of the public’s comments involved a 2000 proposal regulating off-road vehicle use through Big Cypress National Preserve on the northern border of Everglades National Park. Former Superintendent John Donahue said that the environmental impact statement (EIS) generated 1,200 or so comments, some of which were 80- to 100-page documents written by scientists hired by conservation groups. Others were submitted by off-road-vehicle interests.
In response, Donahue drastically tightened regulations, protecting large areas of the preserve from off-road vehicles and requiring users to obtain permits. The off-road users sued, accusing the National Park Service of ignoring their suggestions. But the proposal held up in U.S. District Court, mainly because the Park Service was able to prove that its decision was based on careful consideration of all the alternatives.
While serving as chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Dombeck was struck by the fervor of the comments on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The goal was to prevent most road building and logging in 58.5 million acres of national forest land that had not been put into the National Wilderness Preservation System and therefore were largely unprotected from exploitation. During the three years that this policy was being developed, the Forest Service received an astounding 1.8 million comments. “Not only were the numbers huge,” says Dombeck, “but there was overwhelming support for even greater protection, which ultimately led to a far more protective final rule.”
Why, then, are as many as 720 snowmobiles authorized daily in Yellowstone National Park? Such an outcome would seem unlikely in view of the history. Over the past ten years, the Park Service has conducted four comprehensive studies into whether snowmobiles are compatible with Yellowstone’s remarkable landscape and wildlife. Each time the conclusion was essentially the same: Yellowstone without snowmobiles would be cleaner, quieter, and healthier. And each time the public comments overwhelmingly agreed with the scientists and environmentalists.
“How public comments are treated depends in part on the open-mindedness of the folks receiving them and their commitment to effective public involvement and accountability,” explained Don Barry, executive vice president of The Wilderness Society and assistant secretary of the Department of the Interior under Clinton. He suggested that the Bush administration repeatedly has tried to water down protective standards to appease a small but vocal off-road vehicle constituency interested in keeping snowmobiles in the park. Interior Department officials have denied that.
Still, the overwhelmingly negative public response has had tremendous value in mobilizing editorial boards and members of Congress. “Over time that matters,” Barry said. “You may lose today during the agency rulemaking but win eventually in the legislative arena or in the courts.”
Jones hopes that the increase in citizen comments will continue. “The national parks, national forests, and other public lands belong to the American people,” she notes. “The federal government manages these natural treasures for us, and if citizens don’t speak up, then it will be the lobbyists for the oil and gas industry and other commercial interests who have all the influence on what happens to these special places.”
Jennifer Anderson is a freelance writer based in Falls Church, Virginia. A former newspaper reporter, she has written for Washingtonian, Natural Home, and other publications.
