Edit: The following posts were moved here from the "Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome" thread since the discussion blends with the Wag Bag issues more than the Half Dome permits.
Bob, I've always gotten the idea that most "public comment" processes exist so that agencies can say that they have taken public comment into consideration, without taking it into consideration....and try to make it as arms-length as possible, and certainly wouldn't want to meet in person (gasp). ...
Some processes for comments are inputs, some aren't.
For national forests there are Schedules of Proposed Actions where you can find where there may be actual input opportunities. For an example site to look in INYO:
http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110504For an example in a national park, look in the individual programs at the park website under Management => Planning and then look under individual plans. For example in Yosemite:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/planning.htmSome processes have no requirement for inclusion of public comment into decision processes. The NEPA process for example. The purpose of NEPA is to have your voice heard, not to require any agency to act on it. This was pointed out by the court in the HSHA case. In the thread discussing that, a url of the court's January decision was posted:
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/files/Sequoia-Kings-Court-Order-2012-01-24-1.pdfIn its discussion the court states:
quote
NEPA is a procedural statute which does not "mandate particular results but simply provides
the necessary process to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental
consequences of their actions." Neighbors of Cuddy Mtn. v. Alexander, 303 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2002); see Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) ("It is now
well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary
process.").
It was enacted with two goals mind: "(1) to ensure the agency will have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes its decisions; and (2) to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger audience." Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 88 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 1996).
These goals are satisfied once the agency completes its evaluation; the statute therefore "exists to ensure a process, not to ensure any result." Id. at 758 (emphasis in original); see Metcalf, 214 F.3d at 1141 (9th Cir. 2000)
end quote
If you want to make effective inputs, you might try to participate in the activties that occur before or during planning, instead of afterwards as the NEPA, but the NEPA -will- "get you heard"
if that's what matters to you.
Dale B. Dalrymple
