Transportation & Environment (03/14/00)

Students of the GMForum, and of the Transportation and the Environment course in particular, in the Department of Urban Design and Planning, UW were grateful to receive these comments/response to the following questions. The question is about how to deal with environmental complexity (e.g., scientific knowledge, legal requirements, administrative process, etc.) in contacts with the public.

1. The Environmental Impact Statement is a requirement for implementing new transportation infrastructure, or other projects. The environmental assessment can be quite complex and is not easily understood by a lay observer. Examples of complexity of law and science concerning the environment and transportation include aspects of the Clean Air Act (e.g., the experience of MTBE), the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Is most of the information presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment/Report too complicated for the public to understand?
[ response ]

2. Are the scientific processes of environmental degradation associated with transportation too complex to be readily comprehensible to the public?
[ response ]

3. Do the media (or public agencies) misrepresent complex scientific arguments to the public by trying to simplify? If so, could you provide an example?
[ response ]

4. What and how does your agency/organization prepare for effective dissemination of complex environmental information to the public?
[ response ]

5. What is your advice to students who want to be future environmental planners on how best to communicate with the public?
[ response ]

R. Foxworthy
In theory the EIS should be presented in a manner which can be understood by the public. A good environmental planner and writer will strive for this. Unfortunately, many do not, and some environmental documents can be quite difficult to decipher, even for environmental planners. There are some real-world issues surrounding these inadequacies: 1) Budget is often an issue - too low when it comes to drafting the actual document; 2) Authors often can't write well or the EIS is often a "committee" document, which reflects the points of view of many participants (including the project proponent); 3) EISs and other environmental documents may be intentionally created as overly technical and substantively vague because the author(s) do want the public (or other agencies) to understand them (for various reasons) - this is often the case.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
Although it is a technical document, the public can use it as a source of information that can be accepted or challenged regarding their opinion of the issue. So, no for those with opinions, but yes for those without opinions.

R. Wagoner
Kind of depends upon whether it's a NEPA or SEPA document. I think that after nearly 30 years of experience in reviewing environmental impacts under SEPA, it's possible (thought not always achieved) to write in user-friendly language. LOS is still pretty hard to describe in real world terms. With NEPA, and with my limited experience, the problem seems to frequently be that the federal impact thresholds are so different and so much more compex that its hard for us all to understand. Air quality
is a particularly difficult one.

D. Osborn
I would say yes. Simply beacuse the issues surrounding the nedd for an assessment are typically not understood by the general public. Therefore, if the underlying issues that triggered the report are not understood, I think it would be difficult for the layperson to puick up an assessment report and understand all of the issues. I would like to think that most planners try to write a reprot for the public to understand, but the issues are complicated hence the reason the field of planning exists in the first place.

R. Foxworthy
No. A good document will provide sufficient background for the public to understand. It may be boring, however. One caveat is the nebulous nature of "cumulative" impacts which slide under the bar of "significance" and are legally dismissed. The complexity associated with incremental cumulative impacts can be great, far reaching, and difficult to analyze. Since they are
difficult to review, they are difficult to explain (if they get explained).

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
Yes, the scientific processes are primarily a source of information which are used to mislead the public by both proponents and opponents of transportation projects.

R.Wagoner
I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific processes of degradation". Again, if it's air quality measurement, etc. - probably yes. If it's water quality, the scientific part is pretty hard to understand, but the applications available to mitigate impacts are pretty understandable.

D.Osborn
I think the same analysis above applies. However, I would add that for this question and the question above, if a cititen devotes a large amount of time to to studying the issue, and the person has an average aptitutde, I think the person could become educated and understand and more importatntly, follow what is going on with the environmental issues.

R. Foxworthy
There are often growth-related articles in the local newspaper which attempt to present issues. Unfortunately, time and space constraints require pretty simple descriptions. Often, because the writer does not really understand the issues involved, the track turns to personality contests (e.g., Mayor vs. County Executive clashing over water issues).

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
No, if the intent is to discourage misrepresentations perpetrated by proponents and opponents.

R. Wagoner
Of course the media oversimplify. Just look at the variations in press coverage of the WTO debacle.

D. Osborn
YES, read any article available throught the Wenatchee World(wenatcheeworld.com) and do an archive search on GMA issues. The press typically does not have the time to get up to speed to write a good report. I have taken the time to go over issues to where I thought there was good understanding by the reporter, only to read the article and find out the reporter really did not follow the eplanation ( or I failed in my effort).

R. Foxworthy
There are many agencies and organizations that go to lengths to involve the public. Often, however, the public does not understand the environmental process (i.e., SEPA, NEPA, CEQA, etc.) and does not recognize how it fits into the overall planning process. This often diminishes their efficacy to comment. Unfortunately, agencies do not always provide enough explanation about the overall review process. And, as well, many people do not want to take the time to learn the steps involved. It is easier to just say "no" to a project than to be involved in its planning. One other item, the comment period for an EIS/EIR is often the first opportunity for the public to see the project (with a detailed project description), so it is natural that the public uses this opportunity to voice an opinion. This may not be the best point in the process to voice concern, however, since comment must usually be directed to the adequacy of the environmental review, rather than the overall merits of the project. Offering additional, well publicized opportunities to comment on the project outside the environmental process is important.

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
What and how does my agency prepare for effective dissemination of complex environmental information to the public? Carefully prepared EIR/EIS's, press releases per #3 above, and public meeting presentations when the opportunity exists.

R. Wagoner
It's not so much individual preparation, but the building of years of experience in learning from previous mis-steps and successes. Just reading these mind-numbing documents can be useful. The best preparation is to have a good editor or someone who is not involved in the issue or the technology read your stuff.

D. Osborn
Advertised public meetings

R. Foxworthy
Writing is a must and cultivating a multidisciplinary point of view

B. Collins
City of Port Angeles
Prepare sound technical data, which can speak for itself. Highlight or only include the most pertinent data analysis in the EIR/EIS. Follow #3 and #4 above. Remain professional, i.e., calm and collected, objective and rational, mindful of public interest not project strategies, be willing to engage in a public dialogue to disseminate technical data and to debunk misrepresentations of data analysis, and do not personalize statements made to you or by you.

R. Wagoner
Go to public meetings and public hearings and listen to the technical staff presentations and to the responses by citizens and electeds.

D. Osborn
A need to understand who you are talking to, and how the public may view what it is your trying to do. Keep in mind you will be working for the public and have an understanding of the American political process. As much as you may want to hang your hat on good planning practices and environmental sciences, a failure to understandf the political process will probaly leave you well short of your goal.