Public Involvement & Democracy in NEPA
Public involvement in NEPA is under threat and it is essential that it remains protected
Editor's Note: This week's Memo is a guest post from Ryan Fleetwood, who has been working with Next Interior on a variety of policy matters for a few months and who is passionate about public engagement and NEPA. His bio is at the bottom.
BLUF - Bottom-line up-front
People across the country get to have a say in federal decisions that affect their environment and lives through laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA for short. This Administration’s current proposal to “streamline” NEPA will reduce or outright remove public involvement from the decision-making process. We must protect our rights to these fundamental democratic processes.
Setting the Scene
NEPA processes occur for federal projects that may have an impact on the natural or built environment. As an example in this article, consider the Bureau of Land Management’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the Boardman-Hemingway Transmission Line in Oregon and Idaho. Projects like this have become increasingly relevant with the surge in electricity demand for technology and artificial intelligence (AI) demand. (This kind of impact is why Next Interior has proposed that, We Need a Trust Fund - or Superfund - for AI.)
The EIS process consists of five main, interrelated parts:
- Notice of Intent - The Notice of Intent informs the public of the upcoming environmental assessment [for a federal action] and informs them of how they can be involved in the process.
- Scoping - The publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register begins the scoping process. The lead federal agency will work with the public to define the issues and alternatives that will be discussed in the draft EIS.
- Draft EIS - A draft EIS is written by the agency and published for public comment. The public will then have a period to make comments on the draft EIS.
- Final EIS - The lead federal agency then considers all substantive comments and conducts further analysis. The agency will then update the draft EIS based on that further analysis and publish the final EIS.
- Record of Decision - After a waiting period, the agency will publish its record of decision, explaining the agency’s decision and mitigation strategies, if necessary.
For the Boardman-Hemingway Transmission Line, the proposed action was to construct 305 miles of 500-kV transmission line from a substation in northeast Oregon to a substation in southwest Idaho. On July 27th, 2010, the Bureau of Land Management published the Notice of Intent describing the proposed actions. The agency then began scoping for the projects. In December of 2014, the Department of Energy published the draft EIS for public comment. The agency then reviewed and responded to all substantive comments, including a change to the project in response to public comment, before publishing the final EIS in November 2016. Finally, the record of decision for the project was published in May 2019.
This scenario--a 305-mile long high-voltage power line--has all kinds of issues for the environment. Clearing land cover that is habitat for species, including game species like mule deer and nongame species like Bald Eagles. Impacts to water quality. Impacts to cultural or historical sites…the list goes on. Any and all of these impacts have implications for people who might be impacted by its construction, maintenance, and operations, directly or indirectly. And that sets up the fundamental question: should the public have a say in the workings of the federal environmental policy?
The Current Federal Situation
On January 20th, the Trump Administration directed the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to rescind CEQ rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). This was done ostensibly to remove “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations” (Executive Order No. 14154, 2025) that the current Administration claims exist within the NEPA regulations. In late February, CEQ revoked those rules via an “interim final rule” effective six weeks later. On April 11, 2025, the rules were officially revoked.
The Trump administration’s decision effectively gutted government-wide regulations for NEPA. Now there is no longer a government-wide requirement that agencies prepare a draft EIS for public review. Nor is there a government-wide requirement for that agency to accept, consider, or respond to public comments since April (McElfish, 2025). In other words, the core premise of NEPA has no direct support from the Office of the President of the United States.
Now, the procedures for NEPA are up to each federal agency. For the Department of the Interior, the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance announced that it is updating and partially rescinding its regulations on the implementation of NEPA. Additionally, DOI will now maintain the majority of its NEPA procedures in a handbook separate from the Code of Federal Regulations (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2025). This move has left key aspects of NEPA, such as public involvement, vulnerable to degradation without definitive guidelines.
Despite the fact that NEPA has proven invaluable for public involvement in federal decisions, it has been targeted by opponents for decades. The actions of recent months are the culmination of those efforts to take away one of our fundamental means of democratic engagement.
A republic, if you can keep it
To genuinely understand the foundations of public comment in NEPA, we need to go back in history. Not to 1969 when Senator Henry Jackson of Washington introduced NEPA, but to the founding of our nation and the framing of the Constitution. This foundation, and the political theory it is based on, is extremely important in understanding the importance of public comment and our duty as Americans to participate in our democracy.
At the core of public involvement in American democracy is the concept of popular sovereignty and consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is the idea that the authority to rule people is based on their consent to be ruled (Bill of Rights Institute, n.d.). Similarly, consent of the governed is the idea that legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those who are governed (Uzgalis, 2022). The framers of the Constitution believed that these were the fundamental bases of democracy. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” in the Declaration of Independence.
Behind Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution was the English philosopher John Locke, who argued that for consent of the governed to be meaningful, the consent must be informed and freely given (Uzgalis, 2022). For the consent of the governed to be informed and freely given, Americans must be involved in their democratic systems. The clearest example of this involvement is seen in the civic duty of voting. Continuing through history, we see a more direct form of democracy resulting from the Progressive Movement in the late 19th century. This resulted in the creation of democratic reforms such as the introduction of initiatives, referendums, and recall.
The various forms of direct democracy would later influence public involvement in governance, especially through the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires federal agencies to provide public notice of proposed rules and opportunity for public comment, with some exceptions. For example, the agency received 382 comments on the Boardman-Hemingway Transmission Line Project, with 276 of them coming from individual people. One individual noted in public comment, “I oppose this project. I'm shocked to see 2/3 of the project is private land where you have not obtained the landowners' consent.” This comment was ‘noted’ by the agency. This has been a cornerstone of federal regulations for nearly 80 years. Public influence in the APA was based on concepts from direct democracy and the fundamental belief that the people, ultimately, have a say on what occurs in government.
While that may be a long-winded introduction to public involvement in NEPA, it is necessary to understand the basis and precedent of public involvement in environmental legislation. Because, ultimately, public participation and NEPA is how we keep a democratic society. It is how we, as the people, stay engaged in our government and give informed consent. If we want to keep a Republic, we must defend its foundational concepts.
The Basis of Public Comment
Public involvement is one of the core aspects of NEPA, based on the role of free and informed consent foundational to our country. It was included in the Act in Section 102(2)(C), stating that before making any decisions, agencies must make their findings or recommendations available to the public. This section would later become immortalized as 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) in the United States Code. In 1978, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published the regulations regarding public involvement. Within the Code of Federal Regulations, CEQ declares that agencies must “make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA Procedures.” (40 C.F.R. 1506.6(a), 2024). The regulations go on to include that agencies must “solicit appropriate information from the public” (40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(d)(2), 2024) in any case where an action is of local concern.
Ultimately, 40 C.F.R. 1506 lays a foundation for a robust and thoughtful public engagement process. This is seen through the regulatory requirements for NEPA. Federal regulations require a mandatory 45-day comment period on all Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). This allows the public, everyday Americans, to give their input into developments that directly affect them and their local communities. Furthermore, the regulations also require agencies to respond to all public comments. While this can be viewed as burdensome, it forces the agencies to review and consider all public comments. This is a major tenet of public involvement in NEPA because it means the agencies must listen to the people, not just dismiss their comments. Similarly, Environmental Assessments (EAs) present a case study of public involvement, with the C.F.R. setting forth regulations that require EAs to have public involvement “to an extent practical” (40 C.F.R. 1501.5, 2024).
Without going too far off track, it is also important to consider other environmental legislation in the United States that requires public involvement. Important environmental legislation like the Endangered Species Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) have similar requirements for public engagement. Specifically looking at the FLPMA, it serves as the basis of public land management in the U.S. and requires extensive public involvement. The legislation gives a statutory requirement for public involvement in the Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan in 43 U.S. Code § 1712, “The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures” and U.S. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans in 16 U.S. Code § 1604(d), “The Secretary shall provide for public participation in the development, review, and revision of land management plans, including, but not limited to, making the plans or revisions available to the public at convenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit for public inspection and comment and shall conduct public meetings or comparable processes at locations that foster public participation in the review of such plans or revisions.”
Similar to NEPA, the FLPMA gives the public influence in Resource Management Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans. These management plans have tremendous influence over local communities, and the importance of the public’s involvement--especially local involvement--in the process cannot be overstated. After all, they are our public lands. The people, like NEPA, should have a say on what goes on in these processes.
Thus, there is a clear precedent reaching back over 50 years with public involvement in NEPA and the FLPMA, along with a precedent stretching back nearly 80 years to public involvement in federal regulations and rulemaking in the APA for public involvement in environmental legislation.
Democracy At Work - The Truth About Public Comment
We see the reasons for public involvement in the abstract, but it doesn't answer the question: does public involvement actually work? Absolutely. A recent study from researchers at the University of Arizona (Stava et al., 2025) provides substantial, quantitative evidence that public comment has an impact on federal decision-making.
The authors examined 108 EIS processes over 22 years. Their analysis of these processes showed that public comment caused substantive decision alterations in 62% of cases. Furthermore, 64% of cases had modifications to alternatives, 42% had modifications to mitigation plans, and 11% led to the selection of an entirely new preferred alternative (Stava et al., 2025). Additionally, the research found that when federal agencies changed project alternatives, 88% of the time, they credited public comments as the reason. In 42% of EISs where agencies modified the mitigation plans, public comment was credited 100% of the time. Lastly, when agencies selected new preferred alternatives (20% of the time), they also credited public comment as the reason 100% of the time. (Stava et al., 2025),
The research is clear: NEPA processes enable public involvement that shapes federal decision-making. Not only does public comment give voice to the people that these projects affect the most and allow them to affect the outcome of the project on principle, but we have evidence that their voice matters: federal agencies are listening to public comments and changing their plans accordingly. This is why public involvement was legislated into NEPA. Ultimately, public comment puts the projects into the hands of the people they affect. It gives them the tools to work in a democratic system. To quote the research article itself, “our data say public comments matter” (Stava et al., 2025). In short, NEPA is one key way that the governed are able to provide their consent; the Founders and John Locke would surely be proud.
Stop Villainizing NEPA - It’s Democracy In Action
Sometimes NEPA is seen as a dirty word - or acronym, I suppose. It might bring to mind 600-page environmental impact statements and memories of projects that never were. People will tell you about the hours wasted and sleepless nights preparing reports. It’s part of the reason NEPA has been continuously villainized for the past 55 years, cast as a barrier to projects. An unfair barrier that is chock-full of bureaucratic red tape and regulations.
Nobody with NEPA experience can seriously argue that NEPA is perfect; far from it. (Ideas for how to really improve NEPA will be for another Memo.) But public involvement is not what is wrong with NEPA. It is one of the things that NEPA does best, giving the people who are impacted by these projects a chance to voice their support, concerns, and alternatives.
NEPA is critical because it gives the people a say in decisions that directly affect them. The framers of the Constitution would be proud of what public comment has become. A system where the citizens themselves engage with the democratic processes of the nation. Democratic processes that directly affect them and their local communities.
Keeping the Republic
Going back to the original question posed, should the public have a say in the workings of the federal environmental policy? Absolutely.
The foundation of our democracy is built on the principles of public involvement. Whether it is voting or public comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement, informed citizens are vital to a healthy democracy. A healthy democracy that Jefferson envisioned when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and declared that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. If we want to keep the Republic, we need to stay informed and engaged about its actions.
Moreover, we have quantitative evidence that public comment is truly influential. With research suggesting that public comment caused substantive decision alterations in 62% of sampled Environmental Impact Statements. That is the power of the peoples’ voice.
That engagement in public comment helped influence the Boardman-Hemingway Transmission Line in Oregon and Idaho. The BLM noted that the Idaho Power Company changed the northern end of its proposed action due to public comment. That is the power of staying engaged and informed.
We, as citizens in our democracy, need to do our part in protecting our democracy and the environment. We need to stay engaged in public involvement. We need to safeguard public involvement for the health of our democracy and to keep the Republic.
Read More
Want to learn more? Here are the references from the Memo:
Bill of Rights Institute. (n.d.). Popular sovereignty and the consent of the governed. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/popular-sovereignty-and-the-consent-of-the-governed/
Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Boardman to Hemingway transmission line project (DOI‑BLM‑ORWA‑V000‑2012‑0016‑EIS; Project No. 68150/510). BLM National NEPA Register. https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/68150/510
Executive Order No. 14154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202500121
McElfish, J. M., Jr. (2025, May 21). Goodbye, public participation? Vibrant Environment Blog. Environmental Law Institute. https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/goodbye-public-participation/
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (2024). https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/4332
Stava, A., Thogmartin, W. E., Merideth, R., Bethard, S., Currim, F., Derbridge, J. J., Emerson, K., Laparra, E., Lien, A., McGovern, E., Pidot, J., Miller, M., Romero-Cardenas, K., Smith, B., Winnebald, C., & López-Hoffman, L. (2025). Quantifying the substantive influence of public comment on United States federal environmental decisions under NEPA. Environmental Research Letters, 20(7), 074028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/addee5
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. (n.d.). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.doi.gov/oepc/national-environmental-policy-act-nepa
White House Council on Environmental Quality. (2024). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5. https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2025-04-10/title-40/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1501/section-1501.5
White House Council on Environmental Quality. (2024). 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/section-1506.6
U.S. Congress. (2024). Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1712. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/43/1712
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy & Compliance. (n.d.). DOE/EIS‑0507: Boardman‑Hemingway transmission line, Oregon and Idaho. https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeeis-0507-boardman-hemingway-transmission-line-oregon-and-idaho
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, April). National Environmental Policy Act review process. https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process
Uzgalis, W. (2024). John Locke. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2024 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2024/entries/locke/
Wernicke, J. (2024, June 4). The consent of the governed. Los Alamos Reporter. https://losalamosreporter.com/2024/06/04/the-consent-of-the-governed/
About The Author
Ryan Fleetwood is a current senior at the University of Montana studying Environmental Science & Sustainability - Water Resources and Geography. In 2023, Ryan was selected for the Boone & Crockett Club’s William A. Demmer Scholars Program in Washington, D.C. As a part of the program, Ryan was placed in the Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance (OEPC) in the U.S. Department of the Interior. OEPC serves as the lead office in the Department of the Interior for NEPA and related environmental policy.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author in a personal capacity. They do not represent the views of any affiliated organizations, agencies, or institutions.
To contact Ryan Fleetwood, please reach out to fleetrya@gmail.com
