Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Siting a geologic repository for isolating highlevel nuclear waste up to 10,000 years is a controversial undertaking never before attempted in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted repository siting from important requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. In December 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act identified Yucca Mountain as the first site to be characterized for a high-level nuclear waste repository. In light of the unproven nature of the technology being evaluated, the scientific uncertainties associated with Yucca Mountain, and the lack of proven methods for risk evaluation, the environmental policies for repository siting represent a significant departure from more traditional, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclear projects. The policies warrant further study by those interested in how present as well as future decisions about complex technologies may be made.     

The eclipse of NEPA as Environmental Policy

Previous evaluations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have focused on the effectiveness of its procedural requirements in improving the quality of decision making with respect to environmental matters. Subsequent growth of other environmental regulation and the changing role of Environmental Impact Statements in the decision-making process should also be considered. The many federal and state environmental laws passed in the 1970s have, by defining the nature and acceptability of environmental impact and prohibiting unacceptable impacts, superseded the substantive role of NEPA in environmental protection. Although the EIS continues to serve as a focus for public debate regarding proposed government actions, such debates usually center around social or economic rather than environmental issues. NEPA has thus been superseded by other environmental laws, and its role in the decision-making process today has little relation to its earlier environmental significance.     

Guidelines and Techniques for Improving the NEPA Process

/ The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) principal aims in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are (1) to reduce paperwork, (2) to avoid delay, and most importantly (3) to produce better decisions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. This paper presents four strategies for improving the NEPA process along with tools that can be used to implement each strategy. The tools include guidelines for project management and problem definition, tips for acquiring existing information and identifying issues of public concern, worksheets on how to identify and analyze potential impacts on resources, ideas for enhancing NEPA documents, and a NEPA process checklist. The tools can be used at various stages of the NEPA process and provide a toolbox of guidelines and techniques to improve implementation of the NEPA process by focusing the pertinent information for decisionmakers and stakeholders. KEY WORDS: National Environmental Policy Act; NEPA; Environmental impact assessment; Ecosystem management     

Protecting endangered species under future climate change: From single-species preservation to an anticipatory policy approach

Anthropogenic climate climate change presents a unique challenge for endangered species policy and an opportunity for policy makers to develop a more predictive and robust approach to preserving the nation's biological resources. Biological and ecological reactions to shifting climate conditions and the potential feedbacks and synergistic effects of such changes may threaten the well-being of many species, particularly of those already in jeopardy of extinction. The United States Endangered Species Act of 1973 will fail to keep pace with increasing numbers of species needing protection as long as it remains focused on protecting species individually. The actmust not be abandoned, however; it holds tremendous promise for preserving biological diversity through a more proactive, anticipatory perspective. The current Endangered Species Act should be reinforced and improved by better integration of scientific expertise into habitat and community preservation listing decisions and recovery plan devlopment. Given the uncertainties surrounding long-term environmental consequences of human activities and resource use, a longer-term perspective must be integrated into all efforts to protect our biotic resources. Under appointment from the Graduate Fellowships for Global Change administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Ecducation for the US Department of Energy.     

Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments

Environmental concerns such as loss of biological diversity and stratospheric ozone depletion have heightened awareness of the need to assess cumulative impacts in environmental documents. More than 20 years of experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have provided analysts in the United States with opportunities for developing successful techniques to assess site-specific impacts of proposed actions. Methods for analyzing a proposed action's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are generally less advanced than those for project-specific impacts.The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impact to include the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action. Court decisions have helped clarify the distinction between reasonably foreseeable future actions and other possible future actions. This paper seeks to clarify how past and present impacts should be included in cumulative impact analyses.The definition of cumulative impacts implies that cumulative impact analyses should include the effects of all past and present actions on a particular resource. Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments increases the likelihood of identifying significant impacts. NEPA requires agencies to give more consideration to alternatives and mitigation and to provide more opportunities for public involvement for actions that would have significant impacts than for actions that would not cause or contribute to significant impacts. For an action that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts, the additional cost and effort involved in increased consideration of alternatives and mitigation and in additional public involvement may be avoided if the action can be modified so that its contributions to significant cumulative impacts are eliminated.Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.     

Protection policy for Hawaii's native wildlife during geothermal energy development

Hawaii possesses abundant geothermal resources and rare native wildlife. Geothermal energy development has not posed a threat to native wildlife in the past, but development potential has recently reached a level at which concern for native wildlife is warranted.Potential geothermal resource areas in Hawaii intersect important native forest and endangered species habitat. The ability of existing laws to constrain development in these areas is in question. State and federal endangered species and environmental reporting laws have little ability to constrain geothermal development on private land. Hawaii's Land Use Law had been viewed by conservationists as protecting natural areas important to native wildlife, but recent decisions of the state Land Board sharply challenge this view.While this dispute was being resolved in the courts, the state legislature passed the Geothermal Subzone Act of 1983. Wildlife value was assessed in the geothermal subzone designation process mandated by this act, but the subzones designated primarily reflected inappropriate developer influence. All areas in which there was developer interest received subzone designation, and no area in which there was no developer interest was subzoned. This overriding emphasis on developer interest violated the intent of the sub-zone act, and trivialized the importance of other assessment criteria, among them native wildlife values.     

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: THE CASE OF TWO FORKS DAM1

ABSTRACT: The role of environmental mitigation in permitting decisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act is examined, addressing the extent to which compensatory mitigation is acceptable. The role of mitigation is examined both generically and specifically: first in the requirements of the Clean Water Act and NEPA, and then in the case study of the proposed Two Forks Dam. In both cases, the paper describes dual purposes of environmental protection legislation and mitigation: to protect the biophysical environment and maintain associated human values. Mitigation is found to be sometimes necessary and acceptable as compensation for unavoidable impacts of project development. However, the Two Forks case exemplifies that compensatory mitigation has also been employed as a mechanism to facilitate project development when practicable alternatives entailing less environmental impact are available. Acceptance of compensatory mitigation in such cases violates both the Guidelines of the Clean Water Act and the intent of that Act and NEPA to protect the biophysical environment and human welfare. A recent memorandum of agreement between the Corps and the EPA clarifies this policy, and suggests that permit applications which rely on compensatory mitigation when impacts are available may be denied.     

Critical habitat designation: Is it prudent?

The critical habitat provision of the US Endangered Species Act was believed by many to be a key feature of the Act. It was believed that this provision would benefit federally listed endangered and threatened species. However, only 23% of the listed species in the United States have their critical habitats designated. The current trend is to forego critical habitat designation because the federal government believes that the Endangered Species Act can protect most listed species without resort to the critical habitat provision. Required publication of critical habitat locations in theFederal Register may draw vandals and collectors to rare species. In other cases, existing habitat protection already provides adequate protection for species. In a few instances critical habitat changes over time and is difficult to delineate. Lastly, designating critical habitat is time consuming, delays species listing, and is controversial, detracting from the positive image of the Endangered Species Act.     

“Bats,snakes and spiders,Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes,and other concepts predict support for species protection

This research investigates whether species are perceived differently based on aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and whether these and other attitudes, naturalistic activities, and gender predict support for the protection of threatened species. 228 undergraduate students completed a survey in which they rated pictures of 10 endangered species on aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and support for protection. Findings showed that the two-striped garter snake, Ozark big-eared bat, and dolloff cave spider were conceptualized differently than other species, which may be the result of “irrational” fears linked to animal phobias, culture, and emotional reactions to pictures. The regression results support the common belief that aesthetics is an important determinant in perceptions of endangered species and that the importance of negativistic attitudes may be waning. Moralistic worldviews and attitudes toward landowner rights and the Endangered Species Act were significantly related to support for governmental protection of species. Surprisingly, naturalistic activities and gender were not significantly associated with support for governmental protection of species. In general, the results were consistent across both models. However, the amount of variance explained by aesthetic and negativistic attitudes was 23 percent higher in the other species models than in the bat, snake, and spider models.     

Impending Recovery of Kirtland's Warbler: Case Study in the Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act

Dendroica kirtlandii ). This particular recovery program actually began before passage of the federal ESA, when biologists alerted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources of the perilously low population of this bird, which only breeds under jack pine (Pinus banksiana) trees in Michigan. By the time an ESA Recovery Team was formed for this bird in 1975 (the first such team created under the ESA), a legacy of consensus and interagency cooperation was well established. This has led to successful efforts at habitat management and control of its nest parasite, the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). While the Kirtland's warbler is not yet recovered, its population is near an all-time high, and its recovery is possible within the next decade. When (and if) this happens, it will be clearly attributable to this successful model of federalism for natural resources management.     

Structuring cooperative behavior under the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States

A trend is presently under way to streamline the compliance requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States through cooperative assessment procedures. Since the law was enacted in 1970, however, participants in the assessment process have tended to settle disagreements by adversarial rather than cooperative means. This study focuses on a highly acclaimed environmental assessment procedure undertaken by the U.S. Steel Corporation for its proposed $4.0 billion Lakefront Steel Plant. Survey research data were gathered to measure the underlying management philosophy perceived by interorganizational representatives, who attended a series of Technical Team meetings designed to coordinate the assessment effort and to open communication channels. A social psychological scale of behavioral dimensions was adapted from Likert to define the composition and the extent of cooperation at these meetings. A newly constructed scale was used to measure the quantity and quality of representation by each of the major organizations involved. Informal interviews were conducted with project participants to obtain further insight into member interaction. Results indicate that democratic problem solving was in evidence but also suggest a preference by respondents for improved procedures. The paper outlines areas of concern voiced by respondents and offers the means for improving the operating procedures of similar interorganizational environmental assessments.     

Biodiversity laws: State experiences

The Western Governors' Association (WGA) includes both the public lands states with their issues and the plains states, which are 98% privately owned. WGA deals with most legislation affecting biodiversity, whether the effect is direct or tangential. It will probably not be possible, or desirable, for one entity to be in charge of biodiversity conservation. The Endangered Species Act, public lands laws, agricultural laws, water law, environmental laws, and funding legislation all affect biodiversity conservation and the responsibility for it. None of them on their own are enough, and most can cause harmful unintended consequences for biodiversity. The experience of western states in developing consensus principles for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act provides an example of common-sense ways to improve management of biodiversity, notwithstanding the complexity and large stakes involved. The WGA's proposed changes call for increasing the role of states, streamlining the act, and increasing certainty for landowners and water users. To achieve sustainable conservation for biodiversity, the better question is not “Who is/should be in charge?”, it is “How do we get this done?” To answer this, we need goals, guidance, and bottom lines from federal laws, and management and oversight at the state level, but they all need to support local on-the-ground partnerships. Sustainable conservation requires the active participation of those who live there. WGA's experience in coordinating the Great Plains Partnership as well as its work with watershed efforts shed light on what to expect. Multilevel partnerships are not easy and require a different way of doing business. The ad hoc, sitespecific processes that result do not lend themselves to being legislated, fit into organizational boxes, or scored on a budget sheet. They do require common sense and a longterm perspective.     

Serving the Common Interest in U.S. Forest Policy: A Case Study of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act

In the United States, the common interest often is conceived as a by-product of the pluralist, interest-group-driven democratic process. Special interests dominate in many political arenas. Consequently, we have lost the language, vocabulary, and ability to talk about the common interest. The way to reverse this trend is to develop and practice with new tools that allow us to articulate what we mean by the common interest in specific contexts. In this article, we leveraged the literature on procedural, substantive, and pragmatic decision making to illustrate how they work together to demonstrate whether and how the common interest was served in three case studies of Healthy Forests Restoration Act implementation on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona. In two of the cases we found that the common interest was mostly served, while in the third case it was not. Our results raise questions about the ability of procedural criteria or substantive criteria alone to determine effectiveness in decision making. When evaluated together they provide a more complete understanding of how the common interest is or is not served.

Policy and reality of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Whitman County,Washington, USA

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) promotes the conservation of natural resources through procedural review of proposed actions which may impact natural systems. There are, however, many actions specifically exempt from the SEPA review process. Since many exempt actions could have significant adverse effects on natural resources at one location and not another, the SEPA statute contains a provision that enables local governments to designate Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Within the ESAs, these potentially adverse activities are subject to SEPA review. Local governments have complete control over the exact definition of the ESA criteria and the types of local projects exempt from SEPA. Whitman County, the most productive wheat-producing county in Washington, has recognized the need for conservation of its natural resources in its comprehensive plan but has not implemented the ESA provision. A representative watershed within Whitman County was used as a case study to identify areas which would qualify for ESA status. In these areas, specific soil, water, and biological characteristics or resources were identified as sensitive to certain common land uses. Significant differences were found between state and county policies regarding ESAs and actual conditions within the watershed. It may be more effective for the state to manage ESAs on a consistent and regional basis.     

Prairie dog poisoning in northern Great Plains: An analysis of programs and policies

This paper describes the programs and policies regarding prairie dog control in the northern Great Plains states of Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The poisoning programs of federal and state agencies are described, along with the statutes and legal mandates that shape agency management of prairie dogs. Current policies on National Grasslands and other federal lands typically limit prairie dogs to small percentages of available potential habitat, to the detriment of prairie dogs and associated species. State programs to assist landowners in prairie dog control differ greatly, employing cost-share incentives (Wyoming) and regulatory fines (South Dakota) to encourage the poisoning of prairie dogs. Prairie dog control is not actively funded or practiced by state or county agencies in Montana. We document federal and state involvement in more than 1 million acres of prairie dog poisoning in the study area during 1978–1992. In combination with undocumented poisoning by private landowners, plague, and shooting, prairie dogs may be experiencing net regional declines, contributing to the disintegration of the prairie dog ecosystem. We recommend that Animal Damage Control operations concerning prairie dogs be terminated, on the basis that they duplicate state programs and are at cross purposes with federal wildlife management programs that seek to perpetuate and/or recover wildlife species that depend on the prairie dog ecosystem. We further recommend that federal range improvement funds be offered as subsidies for the integration of prairie dogs in range management, as opposed to funding prairie dog eradication programs.     

A model for improving endangered species recovery programs

This paper discusses common organizational problems that cause inadequate planning and implementation processes of endangered species recovery across biologically dissimilar species. If these problems occur, even proven biological conservation techniques are jeopardized. We propose a solution that requires accountability in all phases of the restoration process and is based on cooperative input among government agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and the academic community. The first step is formation of a task-oriented recovery team that integrates the best expertise into the planning process. This interdisciplinary team should be composed of people whose skills directly address issues critical for recovery. Once goals and procedures are established, the responsible agency (for example, in the United States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service) could divest some or all of its obligation for implementing the plan, yet still maintain oversight by holding implementing entities contractually accountable. Regular, periodic outside review and public documentation of the recovery team, lead agency, and the accomplishments of implementing bodies would permit evaluation necessary to improve performance. Increased cooperation among agency and nongovernmental organizations provided by this model promises a more efficient use of limited resources toward the conservation of biodiversity.