Regulators Speak: 10 Tips for Exceptional Public Comments

Planning to comment on EPA’s Clean Power Plan rules—or any environmental rule or proposal, national or local? Then you might want suggestions on doing it really well.

Last week I asked colleagues about what tips might make for better, more helpful, exceptional public comments. I also asked about what commenters should avoid. In all, we came up with 10 tips that can help you help us help the common good.

1. When it comes to a scientific review, “petitions are meaningless and only create paperwork.” That came from one manager who noted that the review process for an environmental regulatory process is often science-oriented. "It’s not political, so a demonstration of a large group of people opposed to a project is not a factor" when determining the objective, scientific weight of a matter. In general, a letter or petition signed by multiple parties is treated as one letter of comment. Of course, sometimes it is helpful to weigh the frequency of this or that particular comment. But given today’s automated systems for signing and sending petitions and letters, those sorts of submissions don’t carry the bang you expect for the buck of your time.
2. That said, we do take notice when a commenter prepares their own letter. One reviewer put it this way: “Signing a form letter, while treated individually as a comment, adds nothing to our process if it merely repeats a bunch of other letters saying the exact same thing.” But a real letter or an original email with something unique to say? Now that gets people's attention.
3. “Keep comments related to the regulations at hand.” This suggestion was offered more than once. For instance, if the matter out to comment deals with a wetlands permit for a major road construction project, concerns about traffic flow or harm to local businesses during construction will have no impact on the wetlands permit review.
4. If you make an assertion for or against a project (“This project will increase flooding”) provide documentation, if you can, to back it up. If the matter is a scientific one, show us the science that champions your views. If the matter is one of policy, it is better to say "This policy has been shown in these instances to cause this or that problem" rather than "This policy will cause (or could cause) this or that problem." The former speaks of known issues. The latter, without attestation, becomes open to debate. Remember, environmental regulatory staff are typically scientists or engineers. We like data, notations, sources, studies, and we like them relevant. Give us facts, facts, and more facts. They make our day.
5. If photographs are provided, they should somehow be identifiable as relevant to the site or issue being evaluated. “A random picture of a rare dragonfly does not prove existence of a dragonfly at the site unless there is some feature also visible in the photograph tying it to the site.” Similarly, pictures of, say, flooding provided to indicate the conditions of current drainage efficiency should come with a signed attestation that the picture is taken by this person (with name and contact info) at this site on this date at this time under these rainfall conditions, and whatever else helps us put the picture in context. Again, those are facts—and we respond to facts.
6. "It sounds nit-picky, but comments should contain an original signature and not be a photocopy; and they should be legible and contain an address.”
7. "If you give your credentials, they should be relevant to the project.” The regulator who told me this meant that if you’re commenting on, say, air pollution regulations and you explain that you are a retired football coach, that won’t have the same weight as if you’re a retired chemistry teacher—not that we don’t like football coaches, but you get the idea. We want to know of your expertise,if applicable, when it helps us understand why you have the credentials to back up a particular argument. Otherwise, the only credential you need is being a member of the public.
8. “Do your best to understand the matter at hand.” That is, make sure you read any provided fact sheets, proposed rules, Frequently Asked Questions, or other guidance that may be provided. Take advantage, if you can, of any informational meetings or webinars, which are often recorded and kept online so that you can watch them at your leisure. The more you know, the more unique, targeted, and helpful your comments will become.
9. Similarly, if you know the regulator from other projects, you might try calling and explaining your ideas. Sometimes an unofficial verbal chat can help you hone your official words and ideas.
10. Spelling counts. So does grammar. Illegible writing and confusing wording were repeated pet peeves.

Lastly, I’ll add a bonus. We really want to make good decisions, so we really do appreciate the collective wisdom of a community. Besides keeping them relevant and factual, keep your comments objective and respectful. That makes our day and, in the end, it helps everyone help each other—which is what the regulatory process should always be about.