NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) was designed with an unusual attention to public participation (unusual for 1970 that is!). Web 2.0 provides more ways to distribute information and to involve affected communities in the NEPA process. This gives us an opportunity to increase public participation in the NEPA process and improve the outcomes.
NEPA requires public review at 3 specific points in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Because of the length of time required for many EISs, these public review points (scoping, draft EIS and final EIS) can be separated by many months, and, in cases where the project is controversial, lots of pressure can build up in the intervening months that can make the public meetings confrontational and unproductive.
Instead of restricting public input to these three events, what if the EIS was compiled as an open book? How would it work if, for example, the drafting process started with a published frame-work, published draft chapters as and when they were written, received and displayed comments as the drafting progressed and reflected the comments in the text, inserted research results as they become available, etc. etc? I've seen some of this already (e.g. research results published as soon as they are available, an additional public meeting inserted between the DEIS and the FEIS, public comments accepted after the close of the comment periods, etc.) and this seemed to add to the sense of involvement and certainly reduced the tension and drama of the public meetings. So why not write it in the open?
I'm sure that this will present some substantial challenges. I've never had to write an EIS, and would like to hear from you if you have. What would the challenges be?
What do others think?
Comments (6)
Nicholas -- For someone who's never worked on an EIS, you could qualify as a "NEPA-nerd". If you'd like to discuss what I call the "Secret Public Participation Act of 1970" (aka NEPA), I suggest you join the "NEPAtown" group on GovLoop.com. (You don't have to be a govt. worker to join.)
Stephen, I have worked on public participation for EISs but never had to write one. Thanks for your NEPAtown recommendation. I'll check it out.
Nicholas-- Nice post! Philip and I posted compatible thoughts under the topic "Think of New Approaches as Social, Technological, and Staff Investments—Long Term."
Also check out "Design Planning and Decision-Making Processes with “Outreachability” in Mind."
Nicholas- I think you are onto something. The EIS process is actually far more flexible and open to public engagement than many (particularly agency counsel) realize, so your ideas could be tried out with no regulatory or legal changes required. It will, however, take strong and imaginative leadership within agencies to advocate these open processes.
Kirk, thanks for your encouraging comment. I believe you're right about the need for "strong and imaginative leadership". That sort of leadership is, I'm happy to say, implied by the process that we are in today. Another important aspect is the need to match the openness of the "open-book EIS" to the degree of collaboration that the agency wants to work with. It is, of course, not a simple binary question of "open" or "closed". I can think of a range of ways that the openness of the EIS writing process could be calibrated to suit the agency and the particular project.
Nicholas (and others):
Since this site will be open until June
19th, we can still "connect" by leaving
comments here during Phase 2 which
starts on Wednesday, June 3rd.
However, you are welcome to gather with
us also at this discussion (you need
not be a federal employee):
http://www.govloop.com/group/nepatown/forum/topics/nepa-and-the-open-government
P.S. The author of the related idea
on "NEPA.Gov" (John Able) is also there.
vr, Stephen Buckley