United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 14
Number 1
January/February 1988
&EPA JOURNAL
Ecology and EPA
-------
Ecology and EPA
EPA i.s concerned with
nature; as wel! as with
public health. This issue of
EPA Journal explores the
ecological side of the
Agency's mandate, including
its job as an environmental
watchdog at the federal level
under the National
Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
In the first article, the
Agency's Administrator. Lee
M. Thomas, discusses the
ecological and the public
health sides of the equation
as KPA carries out its
responsibilities, Then, in an
KPA journal Forum, six
respected ecologists address
the question, what
ecological knowledge do we
need to do a better job of
protecting the environment?
In a third feature. Dr. Peter R.
Jutro of the Agency's Office
of Research and Development
discusses a difficult issue
facing KPA in a complex
society and a complex
natural environment: how do
we know what to try to
protect'.'
The next articles concern
two major environmental
systems—first, our country's
northern extreme, the Arctic.
and second, in a warmer
climate:, the Everglades—and
some of KPA's concerns lor
their protection.
Governor Thomas H. Kean
of New Jersey explains rising
national concerns about
another environmental
system—wetlands. Kean is
Chair of the National
Wetlands Policy Forum.
From another perspective;.
Congresswornan Clan dine
Schneider writes about her
recent trip to the; island of
Madagascar in the Indian
Ocean to learn more about
the reasons for the planet's
declining biological diversity.
Rep. Schneider. R-RI. is
ranking minority member of
the House Subcommittee on
Natural Resources.
Agriculture Research and
Environment.
Author and teacher Bruce
Wallace presents a scientist's
view of our cities: they have;
an ecology too, he says.
The second, related section
of this issue; reviews the
health and well-being e)f the;
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), which
was enacted to help create a
day-to-day consciousness
about actions affecting the
environment. Jennifer Jov
Wilson, EPA's Assistant"
Administrator for External
Affairs (OKA), explains EPA's
goals under that law. Then.
Richard E. Sanderson,
Director of OEA's Office of
Federal Activities, discusses
some cases currently "on the
firing line" as EPA assists in
implementing NEPA.
An observer of NEPA since
its early days, Alvin Aim,
writes about this statute's
past, present, and future.
Aim helped launch NEPA
and was later Deputy
Administrator of EPA. Dinah
Bear, General Counsel of the
President's Council on
Environmental Quality, takes
the pulse of NEPA: has it
really made environmental
protection part of the federal
way of doing business? And
Malcolm Baldwin, a Council
staffer during the 1970s and
now a writer and consultant,
suggests ways fmm an
environmentalist viewpoint
that NEPA might become a
stronger tool in the effort to
guard the nation's natural
values.
Closing this section, Gary L.
Larsen of the U.S. Forest
Service explains how another
federal agency is using NEPA
to address a tough,
controversial environmental
problem, in this case the
spraying of herbicides on
national forest lands in the
West.
On another subject, the;
next artie:le discusses the;
environmental impact ol a
modern-day product, plastics.
This issue of KPA Journal
concludes with two features
about the Agency—
Appointments and
Presidential Awards. D
Water lilies flourish in a
Louisiana swamp.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 14
Number 1
January/February 1988
«*EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director, Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Ruth Barker, Assistant Editor
Karen Flagstad, Assistant Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
fames Ballentine, Circulation Manager
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land. air. and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The KPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of KPA
has determined that the publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect KPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mail. 401 M St.. S.W.,
Washington. DC 20460. N'o permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Thinking Like
a Mountain
From "A Sand County
Almanac"
by Aldo Leopold
The E in
EPA
by Lee M. Thomas
A Forum:
Speaking Ecologically
How Do We Know
What to Protect?
by Peter R. Jutro
Environmental Treasures:
The Arctic
by Richard Simmer
Environmental Treasures:
The Everglades
by Eric Hill Hughes
Waking Up
to the Value of Our Wetlands
by Thomas H. Kean
Lessons Learned
from Madagascar
by Claudine Schneider
Cities Have
an Ecology Too
by Bruce Wallace
EPA and NEPA:
Challenges and Goals
by Jennifer Joy Wilson
EPA and NEPA:
Cases in Point
by Richard E. Sanderson
NEPA:
Past, Present, and Future
by Alvin Aim
Does NEPA Make a
Difference?
by Dinah Bear
Thoughts about Improving
Environmental Care
by Malcolm Baldwin
Herbicides,
the Forest Service, and
NEPA
by Gary L. Larsen
Plastics:
Concerns about a Modern
Miracle
by Matthew Coco
Appointments
Presidential Awards
Front Cover: Alaska's \orlh Slope.
Piclured here is Okpiluk Hirer
drainage along the coastal plain
ivilli glaciated peaks in (he
distance. See article on page 10.
Pholo by Dennis Miller ol Caribou
Enterprises, Fairbanks, Alaska.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Design Credils:
Donna Wasylkiwskyj;
lion Farrah;
/citnes H. /ngrum.
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for the KPA /ourncil is
$11.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is $13.75 a
year. The price of a single copy of
the EPA Journal is $1.75 in this
country and $2.19 if sent to a ior-
eign country. Prices include mail
costs. Subscriptions to the EPA
Jounid/ as well as to oilier federal
government magazines are handled
only by the U.S. Government Print-
ing Office. Anyone wishing to sub-
scribe to the KPA Journal should
fill in the form at right and enclose
a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents.
The requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents.
GPO, Washington, DC 20402.
N,i
ne
Firs
I. L<
JSt
PL
I A:
»E P
i*N
Co
Str
ripa
eet
ny f\
^ddr
arm
ess
1 or
Add
tion
il At
Id re
5S L
ne
Cit
/
Sta
te
Zip Coc
t;
Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Thinking Like a Mountain
by Aldo Leopold
A deep chesty bawl echoes from
rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the
mountain, and fades into the far
blackness of the night. It is an outburst
of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt
for all the adversities of the world.
Every living thing (and perhaps many
a dead one as well) pays heed to that
call. To the deer it is a reminder of the
way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of
midnight scuffles and of blood upon the
snow, to the coyote a promise of
gleanings to come, to the cowman a
threat of red ink at the bank, to the
hunter a challenge of fang against bullet.
Yet behind these obvious and
immediate hopes and fears there lies a
deeper meaning, known only to the
mountain itself. Only the mountain has
lived long enough to listen objectively
to the howl of a.wolf.
Those unable to decipher the hidden
meaning know nevertheless that it is
there, for it is felt in all wolf country,
and distinguishes that country from all
other land. It tingles in the spine of all
who hear wolves by night, or who scan
their tracks by day. Even without sight
or sound of wolf, it is implicit in a
hundred small events: the midnight
whinny of a pack horse, the rattle of
rolling rocks, the bound of a fleeing
deer, the way shadows lie under the
spruces. Only the ineducable tyro can
fail to sense the presence or absence of
wolves, or the fact that mountains have
a secret opinion about them.
My own conviction on this score
dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We
were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at
the foot of which a turbulent river
elbowed its way. We saw what we
thought was a doe fording the torrent,
her breast awash in white water. When
she climbed the bank toward us and
shook out her tail, we realized our error:
it was a wolf. A half-dozen others,
evidently grown pups, sprang from the
willows and all joined in a welcoming
melee of wagging tails and playful
maulings. What was literally a pile of
wolves writhed and tumbled in the
center of an open Flat at the foot of our
rimrock.
In those days we had never heard of
passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a
second we were pumping lead into the
pack, but with more excitement than
accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill
shot is always confusing. When our
rifles were empty, the old wolf was
down, and a pup was dragging a leg into
impassable slide-rocks.
We reached the old wolf in time to
watch a fierce green fire dying in her
eyes. I realized then, and have known
ever since, that there was something
new to me in those eyes—something
known only to her and to the mountain.
I was young then, and full of
trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer
wolves meant more deer, that no wolves
would mean hunters' paradise. But after
seeing the green fire die, I sensed that
neither the wolf nor the mountain
agreed with such a view.
Since then I have lived to see state
after state extirpate its wolves. I have
watched the face of many a newly
wolfless mountain, and seen the
south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze
of new deer trails. I have seen every
edible bush and seedling browsed, first
to anaemic desuetude, and then to
death. 1 have seen every edible tree
defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn.
Such a mountain looks as if someone
had given God a new pruning shears,
and forbidden Him all other exercise. In
the end the starved bones of the
hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own
too-much, bleach with the bones of the
dead sage, or molder under the
high-lined junipers.
1 now suspect that just as a deer herd
lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so
does a mountain live in mortal fear of
its deer. And perhaps with better cause,
for while a buck pulled down by wolves
can be replaced in two or three years, a
range pulled down by too many deer
may fail of replacement in as many
decades.
So also with cows. The cowman who
cleans his range of wolves does not
realize that he is taking over the wolf's
job of trimming the herd to fit the range.
He has not learned to think like a
mountain. Hence we have dustbowls,
and rivers washing the future into the
sea.
We all strive for safety, prosperity,
comfort, long life, and dullness. The
deer strives with his supple legs, the
cowman with trap and poison, the
statesman with pen, the most of us with
machines, votes, and dollars, but it all
comes to the same thing: peace in our
time. A measure of success in this is all
well enough, and perhaps is a requisite
to objective thinking, but too much
safety seems to yield only danger in the
long run. Perhaps this is behind
Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the
salvation of the world. Perhaps this is
the hidden meaning in the howl of the
wolf, Jong known among mountains, but
seldom perceived among men. D
From A Sand County Almanac: And
Sketches Here and There by Aldo
Leopold. Copyright 1949, 1977, by
Oxford University Press, Inc. Reprinted
by permission.
From Runes of the Norih by Sigurd Olson Illustrated
by Koben Mines. Copyright
-------
The E in EPA
by Lee M. Thomas
EPA was created in 1970, at tin: height
of an era of social consciousness. In
part, the Agency was founded as a
reaction to mounting public: concern
about the deteriorating state of
America's environment. It was also
established in recognition of the need to
unify our environmental protection
efforts under a single agency's
leadership.
The laws we administer give us
responsibility to protect both public
health and the environment. Yet the
reality of congressional priorities,
budget constraints, and immediate
public concerns has always focused our
primary attention on the health side of
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
the equation. Generally, we have
addressed broader ecological
relationships in the context of the
connections between the health of
people and the health of their
environment.
This is not surprising. Many of the
programs originally culled from other
federal agencies to form EPA nearly two
decades ago had specific public health
missions. And over the years, EPA has
attracted a large contingent of Public
Health Service officers, lexicologists,
and others who have brought with them
important expertise on the human
health effects of various pollutants.
Fortunately, measures that protect
public health frequently are beneficial
to the natural environment as well.
Since 1970, we have seen significant
public health improvements in the
quality of our air, water, and land
resources. Now, we are also seeing the
emergence of new issues with
consequences primarily for the
environment. Examples run the gamut
from broad issues of international scope
to relatively specific matters involving
individual chemicals. They include
such things as the ecological
consequences of stratospheric ozone
depletion and global warming, the
effects of acid deposition on forests and
lakes, concerns about America's
vanishing wetlands, adverse impacts
associated with urban and agricultural
runoff on coastal and estuarine
resources, and threats to wildlife caused
by pesticides.
Clearly, we have moved into an era
where we must pay increasing attention
to the ecological aspects of our mission
at EPA. To do so, we will have to vastly
improve our understanding of the
complex networks of interacting
biological and physical systems that
make up the natural environment in
which we live.
While our understanding of many
health-related issues has grown
exponentially during EPA's lifetime, our
knowledge of the environment and
ecosystem processes is still
rudimentary. Our data bases on both
ambient conditions and the
environmental effects of human activity
are sparse. And although we have
dramatically improved our ability to
detect toxics in the environment that
may represent health threats, we lack
similarly sophisticated tools and
methods to provide data for
environmental assessments and
ecosystem evaluations.
I became acutely aware of some of
these problems early in my tenure as
Administrator when I had to make some
major decisions on wetlands protection.
As we gathered our information, it
became clear that we needed a better
scientific basis for decision-making. We
simply had no foundation for knowing
what proportion of a wetland area could
be depleted without long-term damage
to the ecosystem, when such damage
was likely to occur, or how to restore a
system once damage had occurred. Our
ability to answer such key questions
was seriously compromised by a lack of
understanding of how ecosystems
function and how they interrelate.
While our understanding of
many health-related issues has
grown exponentially, our
Knowledge of the environment
and ecosystem processes is
still rudimentary.
Today, we are moving forward to
address these concerns. In addition to
wetlands preservation, we are also
expanding efforts in several EPA
program offices to protect our
environmental heritage as well as our
health. Our program to improve the
quality of near-coastal waters and
estuarine resources is a good example.
The Chesapeake Bay cleanup is
representative of the work we are doing
to address important ecological
questions. Similar work is under way at
Albermarle and Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina, Buzzards Bay in
Massachusetts, Narragansett Bay in
Rhode Island, Long Island Sound in
New York and Connecticut, Puget
Sound in Washington, and San
Francisco Bay in California.
Our pesticide program is also looking
harder than ever at ecological issues.
Our endangered species program is one
example. And ecological concerns like
bird kills are becoming more important
considerations in the pesticide special
review process.
The Superfund program confronts us
with particularly difficult situations
where we often have only part of the
environmental and ecological equation
in front of us when making decisions
about cleanup schedules and stringency.
Fortunately, however, these decisions
often can be made with caveats that
allow implementation with increased
stringency when there is evidence of a
pervasive or significant ecological effect.
This is supplemented by existing
Superfund regulations requiring
assessments of natural resource and
environmental damage from hazardous
wastes.
More work needs to be done here as
well, however. Established toxicological
approaches to risk assessment that are
based on single species and single
chemical exposures are not very useful
for evaluating the consequences posed
to ecosystems. Ecosystems are complex
entities. They are composed of
numerous plant, animal, and biotic
species, as well as water, soil, and
physical components. All of these
interact both internally and with
external forces. In order to understand
the consequences of ecosystem stress,
we must understand relatively
unstressed systems and compare them
to perturbed ones. This requires
measurements and evaluations that
often must be conducted over very long
periods of time.
EPA's public health responsibilities
and its broader environmental agenda
complement each other. This Agency's
public health mission and its role in
protecting the environment both enjoy
broad public support. Each contributes
to our ability to assess risk in a balanced
fashion, one that allows both ecosystem
consequences and human health risks to
be brought into our decision-making.
EPA will always have to operate with
finite resources. We may never be able
to do all the things that are desirable.
Even so, priorities can and will be
chosen with care.
Environmentally sound
decision-making can be facilitated
through a rededication to ecological
concerns along with our continued
strong efforts to deal with public health
risks. This will involve a new look at
data collection, trends monitoring, and
development of new ecological risk
assessment methodologies. A broader
ecological view also will require
commitments to research conducted
according to a carefully conceived
strategy that has a strong consensus of
support inside the Agency, elsewhere in
government, and in the academic
community. D
(Thomas is the Administrator of
EPA.)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A Forum:
Speaking
Ecologically
What ecological knowledge
do we need to do a better job
of protecting the
environment? EPA Journal
asked six geologists for their
opinions in response to this
question. Two of the
ecoJogists—J)r. Phillippe
Bourdemi and Dr. Paul CJ.
Risser—are members of the
Research Strategies
Committee of the Agency's
Science Advisory Board. A
third—Dr. Robert K.
CoJweU—serves with the
Agency's Biotechnology
Science Advisory Committee.
AH six geologists are known
arid respected in their fields.
Their answers:
Thomas Lovejoy
Ecological research needs to
be significant]}' broadened
from its traditional focus on
the effects of pollution on
human health to the effects
of wastes on all living
systems—our "biological
diversity." Even in the
United States, our knowledge
of the variety of life, as well
as the ecology and geography
of life, is too skimpy to
guide us from making major
environmental blunders.
I have heard it said that
science isn't even aware of
the existence of the majority
of organisms that exist in a
handful of soil. We need to
revitalize the "Science of
Systematic^" which
describes, classifies, and
understands the variety of
life on this planet, with
systematic supporting field
work organized perhaps
through a National Biological
Survey. Species aggregate in
communities of many kinds
of plants and animals, but we
know very little about how
and why this happens, and
perhaps more importantly
how and why this diversity
functions. We also need to
know more about rare species
that exist in almost any
biological community.
A broadened
understanding of biological
diversity is needed not only
at the level of small
ecological communities but
must also be studied at the
national and global levels as
well. Habitat destruction is
wreaking havoc with the
major pool of biological
diversity in tropical forests.
Ironically, as the forests burn,
the problem is compounded
by the adding of CO2 to the
atmosphere. Our global
cycling system for carbon is
already overburdened. The
consequences of all this are
only hazily perceived but
they certainly will include
climate change, a rise in sea
level, and profound effects on
species. There is an urgent
need to understand what the
specific consequences will bo
and how to minimixe them.
It seems pretty clear,
however, that reducing
greenhouse pollutants is a
more feasible remedy than
building dikes around coastal
cities to keep the oceans
OUt. D
(Dr. Lovejoy is Assistant
Secretary /or External Affairs
at the Smithsonian Institution
and was until recently
Executive President of tht;
World Wildlife Fund-U.S.j
Pau! G. Risser
It is impractical to test for the
possible adverse
environmental effects of
every new chemical. This is
because hundreds of new
chemicals arc produced each
year and because ecologies]
systems are too complex for
us to judge the impact of
these compounds right away.
Therefore, we must develop
methods for predicting
trouble on the basis of certain
characteristics of chemicals.
Some progress has already
been made. There is no secret
as to what needs to be
known—we simply have to
organize the research effort
and proceed with the needed
experiments-.
Naturally, not everything
can be donn at once: we have
to set priorities. Pathways of
chemical flow should be
identified and then the most
sensitive parts of tin;
ecosystem must be evaluated.
This approach will require;
collective expert judgments,
system modeling, and key
field and laboratory
measurements. The analytical
framework must permit us to
integrate the incoming and
apply it in a timely way.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
Too often \V(! have locused
on the unknowns rather than
the; knowns. In ecological
systems it will always he
important to search for
similarities and predictable
patterns—al! the while being
alert for unexpected
relationships and responses.
These unexpected events are
especially fascinating: for
example, organic processes
which may render a
dangerous chemical harmless
or make an innocuous one
harmful, food chain
dynamics which make a
chemical non-toxic at one
level but toxic at another,
and the enormous range of
susceptibilities and
tolerances among the life
forms of the planet. Under
such conditions, absolute
certainty will never be
achievable, but reasonable
approximations will be.
These approximations,
however, depend upon a
systematic analysis of
existing information and a
judicious acquisition of new
information on key ecological
processes. Q
(Dr. Kisser is Via; President
for Research tit (lie
[/Diversity of Neiv Mexico
und o pus! president «/ the
Ecological Society of
America.]
Ruth Patrick
We need know-how that will
give us more effective ways
of reducing excessive waste
volumes that are; depleting
our natural resources and
contaminating our
environment. As a start, let's
understand that our air,
water, land, and the
subsurface of the biosphere
all interact to form one
environment. We can't
casually remove a pollutant
from one place on earth and
dump it into another without
causing harm to some part of
the environment. This is a
truism whether we are trying
to cope with the deleterious
effects produced by the
manufacturing of materials
for society's use, the
perturbing of the landscape
for immediate needs, or the
creation of faster methods of
transportation.
We have several options
for reducing wastes in the
environment. We can
generate less waste and
recycle those wastes that
must be generated for societal
needs. We must also design
methods and develop models
that will allow us to predict
the ecological, sociological.
and economic effects of
changing the natural
landscape and waterways.
What seems to be
immediately beneficial to
society is often extremely
costly in the long run.
whether it's cutting down
tropical forests, draining
wetlands, or altering the
course of waterways, a
(Dr. Patrick is Senior Curator
at the Academy of Natural
Sciences in Philadelphia.)
Robert K. Colwell
As an evolutionary ecologist,
I am particularly concerned
about the effects of human
activities on non-human
species and on their
interactions with one
another. These effects are
accelerating rapidly with
deforestation and global
atmospheric changes. To
understand changes in
species interactions and
predict their consequences,
we must learn much more
about the roles of organisms
in the structure and
functioning of biological
communities.
We don't fully understand
the reasons for ecological
specialization or why one
community supports greater
biological diversity than
another. We also need to
know more about how fauna
and flora change under
environmental stress and
how to predict the effects of
introducing exotic species
into a particular
environment. For
microorganisms, even less is
known about these questions
than for higher plants and
animals.
Gene technologies clearly
stand to benefit from the
genetic diversity of the
millions of species in natural
ecosystems, now threatened
with degradation and
destruction. We must learn
how to maintain genetic
diversity in the face of
increasing fragmentation of
these areas and accelerating
geographic distribution of
new genetic varieties. We
have the responsibility to
ensure that the design of
technologically produced
organisms minimizes their
unintended impacts while
facilitating the development
of environmentally sound
solutions to pressing
environmental and social
problems, o
(Dr. Co/we// is a Professor of
Zoology at the Department of
Zoology at the University of
California at Berkeley.)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Simon A. Levin
Society is facing great
environmental problems on a
broad scale. We are
confronted with changes in
the composition of the
atmosphere on a worldwide
scale, with the alarming loss
of biotic and habitat
diversity, with contamination
t)f our aquifers, with the need
for alternatives, and with the
collapse of resource systems.
The science for addressing
these challenges must be
integrated across scientific
disciplines and set in a
holistic perspective
encompassing ecosystems
and the biosphere. We must
improve our understanding
of the linkages between the
biotic and abiotic parts of
ecosystems.
We must recognize the
multiplicity of scales that
exist within ecosystems, and
develop a perspective that
encompasses them all. We
need to couple system-level
testing with mechanistic
studies designed to provide
understanding and the basis
for extrapolation, so that we
can classify the ways
ecosystems respond to stress.
We need theoretical models
that capture the basic;
relationships and provide the
logic for extrapolation.
Finally, we must
acknowledge the limits of our
ability to predict. And we
must be prepared to manage
in the face of uncertainty,
which will require the
development of more
sophisticated and flexible
approaches to risk
assessment and management.
It also will require an
increased public awareness
that there are limits to
predictability, and that the
fuzzy boundary between
science and policy justifies,
even necessitates, public:
involvement in the
decision-making process.
There are few scientific
absolutes in environmental
decision-making; rather,
environmental management
must be an expression of the
values and needs of society,
as manifest in the statutes the
peoples' representatives enact
and in societal participation
in public discourse on
environmental issues. -
(Dr. Levin is Director of the
Center for Environmental
Research at Cornell
University and Charles A.
Alexander Professor of
Biological Sciences.)
Philippe Bourdeau
Progress on today's
environmental issues is being
limited in some cases by
economic and political
considerations, and in others
because our scientific
knowledge is insufficient for
us to advise policymakers on
the right course of action.
Seen from a western
European viewpoint, the
main problems may be
classified according to a
spatial (local, regional,
continental, global) or a
temporal (short, medium,
long-term) scale.
Any sensible, publicly
funded research program
designed to provide scientific
support for the enforcement
of an environmental
protection policy should be
made up of three strands.
The first should focus on
tactical short-term problems
of a concrete nature, the
second on mid-term
strategies and the third on
understanding the workings
of the environment in order
to predict natural and
man-induced change and
prevent major disasters from
arising far into the future.
At present, the following
random list of issues and
problems seems to be of
special concern in the
European Community.
Atmospheric Pollution: (acid
deposition and
photochemical oxidants):
• episodic and long-term
behavior of o/.one in the
troposphere
• relationship between
emission and deposition of
pollutants
• stratospheric ozone (o/une
"hole," etc:.)
• long-term effects of
acidification in forest
watersheds and fresh-water
bodies
Environmental Health
Protection: development of
early indicators of health
effects duo to exposure to
pollutants, to be used in
surveillance and early
warning systems.
Chemical Risk Assessment:
improvement of the available
scientific basis.
Toxic Wastes: detoxification
through "low-temperature"
treatment and by means of
biotechnological methods.
Ecosystems:
• development of indicators
of "ecological health"
• measures of the "state of
the environment"
• conceptual models to
describe and predict the
functioning of ecosystems
under natural and
anthropogenic stresses
• improved understanding of
the control mechanisms of
the global ecosystem ("Gala").
Climate Change: induced by
CO2 and other greenhouse
gases:
• reliable regional and
seasonal prediction of
climatic change
• impacts of climatic: change
on European land and water
resources; refinement of links
between large-scale climate
models and small-scale
crop-field models;
hydrological models, etc.
• prediction of sea-level rise
and its critical potential
impact on European coastal
regions
• reduction of CU2
emissions; technologies tor
disposal of power plant (X)2.
Biotechnology: assessment of
possible risks resulting from
deliberate release of
engineered organisms.
Environmental Cost-benefit
Analysis: estimating the cost
of man-inflicted damage to
the environment versus the
benisons thereof, u
{Dr. Ijourdccm is I lirector of
the Environmental Research
Program at the Commission
ol (he European
Communities in Brussels,
liolguim.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
While"warm fuzzy species" tend to stir
protective efforts, "icky" invertebrates
may be overlooked. Pictured is the
millipede Polyzonium rosalbum, an
inhabitant of the Eastern deciduous
forest, recently discovered to be the
source of potent insect repellents of
novel chemical structure.
How Do We
Know What to
Protect?
by Peter R. Jutro
A number of years ago, a letter to the
editor appeared in the prestigious
journal Science. In it. a scientist who
studied mangrove forests in south
Florida reported on a troublesome
outbreak of a parasite, a small isopod
that bored into mangrove roots, and in
the process, killed the plants. His letter
was a plea for assistance from the
scientific community in seeking an
answer that could help avert the
possibility of an ecological catastrophe.
Several weeks later, Science published a
reply. It was from another scientist who
EPA JOURNAL
-------
wrote that he read the first letter with
great excitement, for he had been
studying this rare isopod for years and
was delighted to see a report indicating
that it was making a comeback.
Whether or not the reply was
tongue-in-cheek is irrelevant, for one
could-hardly hope to find a better
parable to illustrate the problem that
environmental scientists face. Despite
an obvious societal concern with the
quality of its environment, there is little
agreement about what we are actually
trying to protect, let alone how to go
about doing it. Why is this such a
problem?
There are several answers. First of all.
the legislation that supports the activity
of EPA has an interesting and unique
pattern. There is no single piece of
legislation that directs EPA to live up to
its name, to "go forth and protect the
environment." Rather, there are stacks of
laws, enacted under the jurisdictions of
different Congressional committees, that
are intended to protect various elements
of the environment. Additionally, while
most of these laws spell out in some
clearly interpretable detail what they
expect from EPA regarding the
protection of human health, they are
much vaguer with respect to ecological
protection.
An example is the Clean Water Act,
which calls for the restoration and
maintenance of the "chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the nation's
waters," and protection of the "natural
structure and function" of ecological
systems. The problem with this, and
other normative exhortations scattered
throughout our environmental laws, is
not that Congress was in error; the
problem is rather that Congress, and
often scientists, were unaware of the
complications inherent in these
definitions. As a result, there is much
disagreement about what they all mean.
Thus the agency which is effective at
conducting research and undertaking
regulatory actions in the health area,
finds itself in something of a quandary
when it tries to do the same in ecology.
Society agrees that it wants to be
protected against the health effects of
hazardous chemicals. We know we want
to be protected against risks of cancer
birth defects, or neurological damage.
These are recognizable and definable
outcomes or endpoints which we can
take action to prevent.
Unfortunately, society's wishes are
not nearly as clear with respect to other
values. We know that as a society we
wish to protect wilderness, lakes, fish,
forests, visibility, endangered species,
and wetlands, but we have no
consistent notion of what that
protection implies, how to balance
among possibly competing goals, or
what price we are willing to pay. What
happens as a result is that we react to
situations. Shellfish populations decline
in the Chesapeake Bay, so we attempt to
determine the causes and then to do
something about them. The eagle
In ecological policy, we
frequently make our decisions
on the basis of values and
politics rather than objective
science.
population declines. We determine that
a pesticide may be responsible and take
steps to eliminate it from the food
chain. We find lakes with no fish and
seek controls on stack emissions that
may acidify lakes. We find forests in
decline and seek the answer in the
control of air pollutants. The pattern is
that what receives attention is what we
seem to value as a people. Charismatic,
warm, and fuzzy species tend to be
protected. Icky invertebrates, which
might be more essential to the elusive
concept of natural structure and
function of ecosystems, are not.
Some of this is inevitable. Through
our laws and actions, we try to deal
with situations we care about and deal
first with the ones that we, as a society,
either care about most, or about which
we are most vocal. Put in other words,
in ecological policy, we frequently make
our decisions on the basis of values and
politics rather than objective science.
Nonetheless, we hope that research in
ecology will lead us to an
understanding of what species,
environments, or processes are critical
to our environment and that a
protection program would logically
follow.
The complexity of nature continues to
amaze us. We are constantly surprised
by situations where an action we take,
often intended as a public benefit, has
unforeseen consequences. Occasionally,
these indirect effects are beneficial. In
India, for example, saving the tiger, the
national symbol, has become something
of a political obsession. Habitat
destruction has posed the greatest threat
to tiger survival. As a result, efforts
aimed at tiger habitat preservation have
probably done more to control
deforestation than any direct campaign
would have accomplished.
Such an example, however, is
unusual. Most unintended policy
consequences are negative. This has led
to caution on our part. That leaves us
again with the problem with which we
began: how do you make hard decisions
with environmental consequences?
The problem is compounded by the
limited predictive power of ecological
science in complex situations. If science
cannot firmly predict the broad
implications of intended actions, if it
cannot assess the risk, how do we then
make the risk-management decisions
that the law requires be based on best
scientific judgment? We have a number
of alternatives.
More often than not, we simply
accept the fact that these are guesses
colored by value judgment, and make
the best possible decision based on our
understanding of the science and the
associated uncertainty. The absence of
certainty, however, also offers the
potential for abuse. Ecological science
has, in the past, been used to justify
environmental decisions that were
instinctively felt to be morally or
ethically correct even if the likelihood
was that there was no strong scientific
justification for such an interpretation of
existing data. Similarly, uncertainty has
been exploited to opposite effect. It can
provide a decision-maker with the
opportunity to accomplish something
that scientists feel may well be
damaging, even though they cannot
prove definitively that it will be.
Although the latter two scenarios are
fundamentally dishonest, the former is
generally necessary.
What this means, simply, is that we
continue to make imperfect decisions.
But more importantly, we must learn
from each decision. Each situation gives
us the opportunity to better understand
what scientific information would
improve the quality of our decisions.
We recognize that although ecology may
not now have the predictive power we
would like, there are directions of
scientific inquiry that may help us
answer such questions in the future.
Designing such a risk-based research
program in ecology is the major
challenge now facing the Office of
Research and Development. Q
(Dr. /utro is Special Assistant to EPA's
Assistant Administrator for Research
and Development.]
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
Environmental
Treasures:
The Arctic
by Richard Sumner
The far north has always gripped our
imaginations. The stories of Jack
London and the explorations of Peary
and Amundsen have left us with images
of a bleak, inhospitable wilderness. But
though the climate is harsh, the native
limit (Eskimos) have lived there for
thousands of years, relying on
mammals, birds, and fish to supply
their needs.
Now, exploration and development of
the oil fields has brought change to the
Arctic,and intense public debate focuses
on the environmental effects of
industrial activity along the North
Slope. The issue of whether
development should occur in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, for example,
is now before Congress. EPA's position
remains one of impartial analysis, based
on tin; host available scientific evidence.
Experience" with oil development in
the Arctic is not very extensive.
Prudhoe Bay opened" in 1968 and the
National Petroleum Reserve west of the
Colville River was explored in the 1940s
and 50s. Based on this limited
experience, the environmental impacts
of new oil development have been
reduced. Nonetheless, considering the
value of arctic life, we must be cautious.
Continued inquiry into the intricacies of
arctic ecology is still the only prudent
course. Central to this debate is the
structure of the arctic ecosystem, as a
whole.
The biological zones encountered as
one moves north through Alaska are like
those one finds while climbing a
mountain: first the tall evergreens, then
dwarf trees, then hardy alpine shrubs,
such as heather, and finally grassy
meadows and lichens. Geographers
define the Arctic to include the treeless
areas of the far north. This area called
tundra comprises about five percent of
the earth's land surface. The tundra
extends in a nearly unbroken band
across the northern parts of Europe,
Asia, and North America. Plant and
animal species are remarkably similar
throughout this vast realm.
The North Slope of Alaska covers
more than 200,000 square kilometers
and embraces three major physiographic
regions: the Brooks Range, the foothills,
and the coastal plain. The Brooks Range
is a rugged, glaciated extension of the
Rocky Mountain chain that has a mix of
arctic and alpine tundra. Slopes and
high ridges are sparsely vegetated, often
only with lichens, and are similar to the
polar deserts of northern Canada and
Greenland. Lower, more protected
slopes have dry-meadow communities
dominated by mountain avens, a dwarf
shrub featuring white, eight-petaled
flowers. Near the valley bottoms are
moist sedge meadows or shrub tundra
with willow and dwarf birch.
The Brooks Range slopes downward
to foothills in the north. These rolling
hills of glacial deposits are covered by
large stands of tussock tundra—compact
tufts of cotton grass. Exposed ridges
have alpine-like communities similar to
those of the Brooks Range. Wet swales
and valleys feature willow thickets and
sedge meadows. Further north is the
coastal plain, a gently sloping expanse
of marine sediments dominated by
grasslike sedge communities.
The tundra is underlain by
permafrost, permanently frozen soils up
to 1,500 feet deep. A thick, insulating
mat of moss rests on an active soil layer
often less than six inches deep. This
thin soil, combined vvith the short
growing season and low summer
temperatures, results in slow rates of
growth and decay. Thick layers of
frozen peat develop, locking up the
nutrients necessary for plant growth.
Arctic vegetation thus responds
dramatically to fertilization, and lush
growth can be found near bird mounds
and animal burrows in July and August.
There are many lakes and rivers on
the North Slope but most are too
shallow to support overwintering fish,
and this limits the size of freshwater
fish populations. Species like whitefish
and arctic char are found along the
coast during the open-water season, hut
return to deep pools in freshwater
streams or brackish river deltas to spend
the winter. Only two major rivers in the
Northern American Arctic empty into
the Arctic Ocean—the MacKenzie in
Canada and the Colville in Alaska. The
mouth of the Colville forms a large delta
system with many freshwater and saline
lakes and channels. A tremendous
diversity of habitats supports large
populations of overwintering and
breeding fish and some of the largest
waterfowl and shorebird populations on
the North Slope.
Though the North Slope receives less
than 10 inches of precipitation per year,
low temperatures keep evaporation to a
minimum, and the permafrost layer
prevents absorption into the soil. For
this reason, flat or gently sloping
surfaces are usually saturated or flooded
throughout the summer. The coastal
plain becomes a vast wetland.
But the tundra is a dynamic landform.
Extreme cold causes the ground to
contract, much in the way that crac:ks
form in a parched river bottom.
Snowmelt then freezes in the cracks.
The ice wedges down and out into the
soil to form the rims of polygons. Some
drain and some combine eventually into
lakes. From the air, the land resembles a
honeycomb.
The steep slopes of the Brooks Range
also suffer frequent rock slides and
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
avalanches. In the foothills and coastal
plains, frost churns the surface into
scattered patches and rings called frost
scars or boils. The annual flooding
during ice breakup inundates the
tundra for up to two weeks at a time.
Thermal erosion melts ice wedges,
causing river and lake banks to slump,
and converting wet, low-centered
polygons into dry, high-centered ones.
Animal species have evolved a
number of means to adapt to this
ever-changing tundra environment.
Immense herds of caribou and large
flocks of waterfowl and shorebircls
arrive in the spring to take advantage of
the rich wetlands for feeding and
breeding, and then migrate south again
as the season shifts. Some of the
animals that remain for the winter
either hibernate (ground squirrels) or
become torpid (bears). The few large
herbivores (such as musk oxen) and
even fewer birds (such as ptarmigan}
that remain active have developed large
body masses, thick insulation, and the
ability to feed through the snow.
Lemmings, one of the most abundant
herbivores in the Arctic, build large
nests and graze on old grasses and
sedges under the snow.
Are popular depictions of the tundra
biorne as a fragile environment correct
or not? Tundra organisms are adapted to
natural disturbances, but their recovery
may take far longer than in temperate
climes. Removal or disruption of the
insulating mat of vegetation causes the
underlying permafrost to melt and can
produce trenches that continue to erode
for many years before natural restoration
can occur.
While the immediate effect of
removing the organic mat is to destroy
existing vegetation and hamper
resprouting, a long-term consequence is
the loss of accumulated soil nutrients. It
may take up to 10,000 years to replenish
these nutrients at current rates of
accumulation. While the ecosystem as a
whole can accommodate a certain
degree of disruption, recovery of a
specific site may take centuries due to
both the short growing season for tundra
organisms and their slow rates of
growth. The total effect of many such
incidents over a large area is uncertain,
but could be critically destabilizing.
Much of the ability of plants and
animals to adjust to local environmental
stress derives from the large expanse of
similar habitats that can be exploited
and the existence of nearby populations
that serve as reservoirs for
recolonization. There is great
uncertainty as to the effect of destroying
high-use or critical habitats.
This issue, of course, is central to the
debate over oil exploration in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, site of the
main calving area for the famed
Porcupine caribou herd. As
development proceeds and the tundra
becomes increasingly fragmented, the
recovery of local populations may be
hampered by the lack of neighboring
populations. Moreover, what we know
over the centuries to come. Once lost,
our natural heritage can never he
regained. As stewards of the earth, we
must protect it for the enjoyment of
generations to come. -
/Simmer is the Team Leader in lU'A'x
Alaska Operations Office of Wetlands
and Environmental Review.]
Editor's note: See article by Richard E.
Sanderson fora discussion of roses
involving EPA reviews under (he
National Environmental Policy Act of
possible environmental imparts by th<>
actions of other federal agencies.
of tundra biological change and
accommodation is mostly based on our
experience with plant communities'. U'e
know less about the long-term stability
of wildlife and of the biome as a whole.
and even less about their synergies and
interactions.
The tundra ecosystem, then, can be
seen as a naturally resilient system. We
know that plant and animal
communities have been able to adapt to
their harsh surroundings, but the slow
pace of the tundra's biological clock
constrains its ability to deal with the
sudden intrusions of industrial
development. The time periods
necessary for regeneration of plant
communities must be considered when
making any resource management
decisions.
We must move carefully, a step at a
time, until we know for certain what we
are doing and what our impact will be
Above: A lone caribou braves Lake
Peters, Alaska. Each spring, herds of
caribou arrive to take advantage of the
rich wetlands for breeding and feeding,
then migrate south.
Left: Snow geese arrive in Alaska as
early as August 15 and feed until the
heavy storms begin around mid-
September. Then they start their long
trip to New Mexico and California. This
flock is on the Jago River, Alaska.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
1 I
-------
Environmental
Treasures:
The Everglades
by Eric Hill Hughes
Say the word "Everglades," and
people envision a broad, dynamic,
self-renewing, never-ending swamp
replete with birds, alligators, and
snakes. That's how it appears on TV
nature shows that focus on the lush
sub-tropical vegetation. But the sad fact
is that the Everglades is but a shadow of
its former self, and Everglades National
Park, which makes up only 7 percent of
the Everglades drainage basin, is in
grave jeopardy.
The federal government recognized
the value of this unique resource as
early as 1934, and, in 1947, the
Everglades National Park was
established as part of the U.S. Park
Service. Unfortunately, the watershed
that feeds the park and makes it viable
has never been sufficiently protected.
Portions of the drainage basin north of
Lake Okeechobee have been drastically
altered by flood control and
channelization in the Kissimmee River
Valley. Fish and wildlife populations in
the Kissimmee corridor have
plummeted as wetlands have been
converted to farms.
South of Lake Okeechobee, the
original Everglades marsh has been
compartmentalized by multiple levees
and canals. In recent years, Lake
Okeechobee itself has begun to
eutrophy, probably as a result of
nitrogen and phosphorus-laden run-off
from dairy operations north of the lake
and from agricultural backpumping to
the south of the lake. Huge areas of the
Everglades were converted in the 1960s
into water conservation areas encircled
by a 1,400 mile-long levee and canal
system. A 1,000-square-mile area of
Everglades marsh south of the lake was
converted to agriculture, predominantly
sugar cane fields.
The Everglades south of Lake
Ukeechobee today is, in fact, a series of
water conservation areas with very
carefully regulated water levels and
movement, employing numerous large
water-pumping stations and canal/levee
systems managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District.
Water managers regulate the flow not
only to farms but to large urban areas
along the coast of southeast Florida
stretching from West Palm Beach south
to Miami. Agriculture in South Florida
is a major segment of the economy, so
water is carefully allocated to provide
for winter crop irrigation.
The Everglades is also the prime
water-recharge area for the Biscayne
Aquifer, the drinking-water source for
more than 3 million people in the
Broward and Bade County areas.
Recharge from the Everglades maintains
the fresh ground-water system in the
upland coastal ridge area and protects
the coastal aquifers from saltwater
intrusion—a problem which has
occurred in some areas as a result of
over-drainage in the Everglades. The
Aquifer is not covered by thick layers of
protective soil and is very transmissive,
so it is highly vulnerable to surface
contamination.
One of the major resource challenges
that we face in coming years is ho\v to
manage finite water supplies so that the
interests of urbanization and agriculture
can peacefully co-exist, at some level of
acceptable compromise and
accommodation, with the Everglades.
The remaining ecosystem provides a
home for numerous endangered,
threatened, and rare animal species
found nowhere else in the continental
U.S., including the Cape Sable seaside
Everglades National Park, home to many species of wildlife, was established in 1947.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
sparrow, the American crocodile, and
the Florida panther. Studies indicate
that maintaining natural, seasonal water
flow and timing of water deliveries to
the Everglades National Park is crucial
to successful maintenance of wildlife
populations.
Current water management strategies
under evaluation by the Corps of
Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District are aimed at
returning a more natural seasonal water
input from the extensive water
conservation areas to the Park itself.
These efforts to restore some of the
natural hydrology to the Everglades are
supported by EPA, the Department of
the Interior, the State of Florida, and the
Corps of Engineers, as well as the
general public. For instance,
construction of levees in the 19(>0s and
early 1970s reduced the width of the
Shark River Slough, the main surface
waterbody providing water to the
Everglades, so that water releases into
the park were allowed only across the
western half of the Slough. Park officials
have worked diligently with state and
federal water managers as well as other
wildlife management agencies in an
effort to restore the Everglades water
delivery system to its historic:
dimensions to the extent possible across
the entire breadth of the Shark River
Slough.
Along the eastern edge of the Shark
River Slough lies the East Everglades, an
area sandwiched between the water
conservation areas to the west in
Broward and Dade counties and the
heavily urbanized areas to the east on
the coastal ridge, including Miami and
Fort Lauderdale. Hundreds of square
miles of former wetlands in western
Broward and Dade counties have been
lost or seriously degraded by drainage
projects undertaken over the past 40
years in order to support urban,
farming, and mining uses.
The proof? Witness the skyrocketing
of the metropolitan Miami population
from approximately 5,000 people in
1910 to more than 2 million people in
1988! However, large acreage of
functional wetlands is still in private
ownership in the East Everglades and,
though vulnerable to agricultural
conversion and commercial or
residential development, can be saved.
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments (later
amended as the Clean Water Act)
established a permitting program for
Concerns about Rockplowing
On April 22, 1987, the EPA Region
4 office in Atlanta, Georgia,
initiated action under Section
404(c) of the federal Clean Water
Act to protect three wetland
properties, totaling 432 acres,
where rockplowing projects had
been proposed or were anticipated
in Florida's East Everglades. If
finalized, this action could prevent
issuance of Section 404 permits for
these projects.
"Rockplowing" converts
seasonally inundated
pinnacle-rock prairie wetlands into
fields suitable for agriculture. A
bulldozer drags a plow-like
implement over the surface.
breaking it up to make the land
smooth and level enough for
vegetable crops during the winter
dry season. The result is the
destruction of valuable wildlife
habitat and major disruption of the
food chain production and water
purification functions provided by
the wetlands.
About 55 percent of the
wetlands extant in the lower 48
states in colonial times have been
lost, largely due to human activity.
Since the turn of the century,
approximately 40 percent of South
Florida's freshwater wetlands have
been destroyed, and a significant
additional acreage has been
adversely affected by drainage.
Despite the public's current
heightened awareness of wetland
values, approximately 300,000
acres of wetlands still are being
lost every year, some 96 percent of
which are the freshwater type.
Agricultural conversion accounts
for about 87 percent of freshwater
wetland losses nationwide.
A public hearing on Region 4's
proposed Section 404(c) action
was held on November 18, 1987.
in Homestead, Florida, near the
East Everglades, to provide
property owners, governmental
agencies, and the public an
opportunity to comment on EPA's
proposal to deny federal
authorization for the conversion
projects. The next step in the
process was a decision by the
Regional Administrator which
recommended a prohibition on the
use of the acreage for rockplowing.
Final Agency decisions on regional
recommendations are made by the
Assistant Administrator for Water
in EPA Headquarters.
regulating discharges of dredge;d or fill
material into waters of the United
States, defined to include most
wetlands. The permitting program is
jointly administered by the Corps and
EPA under section 404 of the Act.
Under this program, property owners
must obtain permits to discharge fill
into wetlands—to bulldoze roadways.
build commercial or housing
developments, lay out farms, or put up
levees.
Today, the East Everglades region is
caught in a flurry of development.
Water allocation decisions and wetland
filling permits are subject to the intense
pressures of urban construction and
agricultural interests. The question is,
can we effectively protect, restore, and
manage the Everglades while allowing
some use of altered wetland systems on
its eastern margin? EPA, the Corps of
Engineers, the Department of the
Interior, and the State of Florida are
working with developers and other
county, state, and federal agoncius in an
effort to strike an environmentally
sensitive balance between the
Everglades and economic progress.
Many hard choices will confront us
over the coming years. Can wo apply
the lessons learned, or will tin;
Everglades become a mere: memory,
another object of pity or nostalgia for
what might have been? The answer
cannot depend merely upon self-serving
impulses. It must How from an aroused
nation, one unwilling to trade i!s
natural resource; heritage; for sheirt-term
"profit." a
(Hughes is (i Wetlands lic.'olejgisf in the;
Water Management Division in KPA's
Hegion 4.)
JANUARY FEBRUARY 1988
-------
Mallards in a marsh in eastern Maryland. Wetland areas were once considered useless. Now there is ir
save them.
nq action to
Waking Up to
the Value of
Our Wetlands
by Thomas H. Kean
Wetlands—the word conjures up an
image for each of us. For the
hunter it may be the sight of a flock of
Canada geese slowly circling to land; to
the birder it may be the memory of
sighting a rare or endangered species.
On the other hand, many view wetlands
as areas which serve no useful function.
However, while many positive aspects
of wetlands may be hidden, they are
very real. Wetlands provide many and
varied benefits from reducing the
damage caused by flooding to providing
habitat for endangered species of plants,
fish, and other wildlife.
Wetlands are an important natural
resource; they are an important national
resource as well.
But they are a threatened resource.
When this country was settled by our
European ancestors, there were over 200
million acres of wetlands in what Ls
now the continental United States.
Today, we have less than half of that
amount, and in some areas, more than
90 percent of the wetlands that existed
at the time of the Revolutionary War
have been lost. Our desires for housing,
places for jobs, and sufficient supplies
of food, oil, timber, and other products
cause us to take actions, both in and
near wetlands, which cause the loss.
These losses must be stopped, and
there is a growing realization that we
must act quickly. Many states, including
New jersey, have adopted legislation
protecting coastal or inland wetlands, or
both; many private non-profit groups are
active in purchasing or otherwise
protecting wetlands, and the federal
government has a range of programs,
both regulatory and non-regulatory in
nature, designed to reduce these losses.
Wetlands Benefits
In the past, wetlands were looked upon
as wasted, useless lands. For example,
in 1845 Florida's legislature described
the vast wetlands system of southern
Florida, remnants of which are now
Everglades National Park, as "wholly
valueless." They were lands to be filled,
drained, cut, or diked—anything but left
in their natural state.
However, the "beneficial" alterations
we have allowed and encouraged in our
wetlands have resulted in other, less
desirable changes. As wetlands adjacent
to rivers were destroyed by filling or
diking, flooding downstream increased.
As coastal wetlands were filled or
dredged for residential or other
development, important fisheries which
relied upon those wetlands as nursery
areas were affected. As wetlands in the
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Midwest's central flyway were lost, the
vast annual migration of waterfowl, one
of the hemisphere's great natural
phenomena, was greatly reduced. The
examples, both local and regional, are
many and disturbing.
Each time a wetland is converted to
other uses, some or all of its beneficial
functions are lost. Researchers have
tried to sort out the individual functions
which wetlands provide us—in one
case, 15 were counted. These include:
providing recharge for our vital
ground-water sources; storing rainwater
during periods of heavy rain, thus
reducing the size of floods downstream;
protecting our coasts from the pounding
force of the sea; providing breeding
grounds for a majority of the nation's
coastal fish and shellfish; providing
resting points for the great waterfowl
migrations; and acting as refuges from
the hustle and bustle of our busy daily
lives. But it may be easier to think of it
this way—when was the last time you
saw a flock of ducks flying south in the
fall? When was the last time you had
fish for dinner? When was the last time
you took a drink from your tap?
Chances are wetlands played a role in
each of these.
Every wetland is a unique mix of
functions; no single attribute defines
these complex systems. This fact makes
protection of wetlands that much more
important. It also makes their protection
that much more difficult, since there is
no simple way to tell whether a specific
activity which influences such a
complex interdependent system will
have other, unintended side effects.
Wetlands Losses
Changes to wetlands occur for a myriad
of reasons. Filling a wetland to
construct an office building or draining
one to plant soybeans may be obvious
examples of alteration. Contamination of
wetlands by irrigation return waters, as
has occurred in California's Kesterson
Wildlife Refuge, or changes to wetlands
resulting from diversion of ground or
surface waters, are examples of less
obvious, but still important, influences
on wetlands systems. Since the location
and character of wetlands depend upon
water, topography, soils, and vegetation,
any influence on these factors will
result in changes to the wetland.
With few exceptions, these alterations
are avoidable. We must understand
where our wetlands resources are, so
that farmers, developers, and those in
government who build roads, dams, and
other projects understand, before they
invest large amounts of time and money
into specific sites, that constraints may
be placed upon their actions. We must
protect our most important wetlands
areas by purchasing them, if necessary.
And we must ensure that our regulatory
programs are comprehensive enough
and strong enough to stem the tide of
losses.
National Wetlands Policy Forum
Crafting solutions which achieve these
goals is a difficult and elusive task.
Regulatory programs, especially at the
federal level, involve a number of
agencies with different interests and
mandates, and are seen by those who
are regulated as unpredictable and
unnecessarily time-consuming. At the
same time, others view them as not
protective enough. To complicate
matters, there are many governmental
programs, such as road-building and
other public works programs, which
encourage activities that may result in
wetlands conversion, and thus provide
mixed signals about the nation's real
intentions with respect to protecting
these resources.
The National Wetlands Policy Forum,
which I chair, is a group of state and
local government leaders (including
three governors), leaders of major
environmental organizations,
representatives of major industries with
an interest in wetlands (agriculture, and
the timber, oil and gas, and
development industries), and academics.
Heads of the major federal agencies
which deal with wetlands (including
EPA Administrator Lee Thomas)
participate in the discussions as well.
The group was formed to provide some
overall direction for policymakers at the
federal, state, and local level, and for
private owners and users of wetlands.
We will attempt to sort out such
difficult questions as the role of various
levels of government in protecting
wetlands, the type of incentives which
should be provided for private
landowners to protect wetlands, how to
reduce government-encouraged
alterations, and how to make tradeoffs
between the need to protect wetlands
and other important public goals.
New Jersey's Wetland
Protection Programs
We in New Jersey have long recognized
the value of wetlands. As the most
densely populated state, with a strong
economy and continuing development
pressure, we recognized the need for a
variety of approaches to protect our
tremendous coastal and freshwater
wetlands resource.
The state has regulatory programs
designed to ensure that activities which
will damage or alter wetlands are
generally prevented, unless other major
public goals are served by the
disruption. The Wetlands Act of 1970
protects the state's coastal wetlands, and
the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act,
passed in 1987, extends this protection
to the remainder of the state.
The coastal wetlands program has
been a tremendous success. At a time
when demand for luxury housing on or
near the state's coastal bays was
increasing, the program made clear that
wetlands were a precious resource that
should not. except in rare
circumstances, be developed. We hope
to do the same with the new freshwater
wetlands program, which was passed
after a long and often bitter legislative
battle pitting development and
environmental interests against each
other.
The state also acts to purchase
specific wetlands sites. Since 1984,
sales of waterfowl stamps and prints to
collectors and hunters (who must
purchase New Jersey stamps along with
the federal stamp and a state hunting
license) have provided about $1 million
to purchase waterfowl habitat. In
addition, our Green Acres Program,
which uses money from bond issues to
purchase land for the state, and our
"Green Trust," which gives grants and
loans to local governments for open
space acquisition, have also funded
purchases of about 80,000 acres of
wetlands. These programs also work
together with the federal government
and with private, not-for-profit groups
such as Ducks Unlimited and The
Nature Conservancy on specific
acquisition efforts.
Conclusion
Wetlands may be silent, but they should
not be forgotten. They play vital roles in
the cycles of water and life upon which
we depend, and their destruction will
made us all poorer. As we develop and
redevelop our cities, and work to
revitalize our farm communities, we
must not lose sight of the basic
resources which support us all. o
(Kecm is Governor of New Jersey and
Chair of the National Wetlands Policy
Forum.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
Lessons
Learned from
Madagascar
by Claudine Schneider
Those of us interested in tracking the
diversity of our planet's biological
species are well advised to start with
the giant footprint in the Indian Ocean
that is Madagascar. One thousand miles
from heel to toe and 350 miles across at
the arch, the Texas-sized island nation
off the southeastern coast of Africa was
once the single richest oasis of the
earth's biological diversity.
While singular in its 'mega-diversity"
of flora and fauna, the world's fourth
largest island does share commonality
with other ecologically rich countries in
one compelling respect: Madagascar's
lush tropical life is vanishing at a
dangerous rate.
The rainforests and evergreen
woodlands that once crowded the
plateaus and valleys are evaporating like
Madagascar's lush tropical life is
vanishing at an alarming rate. Right,
these endemic palms, genus Needipsas,
are growing near Fort Dauphin. Above:
The island's wildlife includes 29 species
of lemurs, but agriculture and towns are
encroaching on habitat.
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
summer puddles. In fact, 80 percent
of Madagascar's forests have already
disappeared into tracts of parched earth.
They have been largely scarred and
denuded by the effects of a soaring
birthrate that has doubled the island's
population every 30 years, coupled with
grossly counterproductive agriculture
and livestock practices that lack sound
environmental management techniques.
Madagascar's sandy west coast and
tropical climate are developing an
attractive tourist trade. That was hardly
good reason, however, to endure the
rigorous 20-hour flight there last
summer. I spent a fortnight on the
island for some R&R, albeit not the
traditional kind. I was there for some
Research on Rainforests.
My interest in Madagascar comes as
much from my work as Ranking
Republican on the House Subcommittee
on Natural Resources, Agriculture
Research and the Environment, as it
does from my personal commitment to
conservation. The island has one of the
highest concentrations of endemic
species in the world, meaning that the
country has a large number of plant and
animal species found only in
Madagascar and nowhere else.
One such plant, originally endemic to
Madagascar, was the rosy periwinkle.
This is the source for two critical
alkaloids that are used to treat
childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's
disease. The rosy periwinkle does not
face extinction since it still thrives on
Madagascar and has been exported to
many other countries. The point is that
this particular plant is safe because its
beneficial medical properties had
already been identified before it could
become endangered. Unfortunately, with
today's pace of development, many
other such species could likely pass
from existence altogether before we
know just how much good they can do
for mankind. It is clear that the threat of
extinction of endemic plants and
animals has consequences beyond the
aesthetic nicety of protecting a luxuriant
environment.
The tropical forests that gird the
earth's equatorial belt are proving to be
veritable goldmines of valuable
resources. They provide
disease-resistant germplasm for
enhancing the productivity of U.S.
agriculture, provide a broad range of
life-saving pharmaceutical drugs, and
promise a wealth of oils, resins, plastics,
and feedstocks for the chemical, energy,
and basic materials industries.
Unfortunately, the population
pressures and resource depletion so
apparent in Madagascar are but a
microcosm of similar destruction
worldwide. Tropical forests are being
destroyed at the rate of one area the si/.e
of Pennsylvania every 12 months. The
continuation of present trends could
result in the extinction of over one-third
of the world's irreplaceable genetic:
resources within our lifetime. This
verges on the tragic, given the fact that
this germplasm is the very stock and
trade of the bio-technological revolution
now transforming our world economy.
Moreover, recent climatological research
indicates that the world's tropical
forests are intimately linked to the
global atmospheric system, and that
widescale destruction of this rich biota
could trigger dramatic, and irreversible,
changes in the earth's climate.
Unless world attention can be riveted
on the urgency of this situation, these
new frontiers will never be explored
and future generations will have been
deprived of a tremendous heritage. My
tour of Madagascar, guided by several ot
the world's foremost conservation
biology experts working with the World
Wildlife Fund, \vas designed to show
me both sides of the future: the bleak
prospect of a depleted planet bereft of
its genetic endowment, and a more
hopeful prospect of preserving the
remnant forest through strategic
conservation efforts.
Madagascar, like other mega-diversity
countries such as Brazil, Peru.
Indonesia, Mexico, and Colombir., faces
acute threats to their remaining forests if
population growth goes unchecked and
the inefficient "hoe and hoof" practices
of the past continue to prevail.
Fortunately, vigorous efforts
spearheaded by the World Wildlife
Fund and the International Union for
ADAGASCAR
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have
convinced the World Bank, the U.S.
Agency for Internationa! Development
(AID), and other development agencies
to work with the Madagascar
government to establish a conservation
strategy. The focus is on conserving core
areas of biological diversity in the form
of parks and reserves: developing the
areas to plan utilization of timber
products, food, fodder, and fuel; ami
involving local communities
The strategy is very promising
because it is inexpensively designed so
that even the most impoverished
villagers can help secure themselves an
enriching livelihood that is at the same
time ecologically sustainable. Children
are an integral part of the program,
which is vital to the long-term success
of this strategy, because young people
comprise the majority of the population.
Education programs at till levels are part
of this strategy. The school children are
literally both planting and protecting
their present and future economy.
The writer H.G. Wells once said that
the future of humankind hangs on the
race between education and catastrophe.
His quip could well serve us the
succinct commentary of my stay in
Madagascar. Until recently, members of
the scientific community have been
alone in awakening the world to the
massive challenge now before us. They
have marshalled
-------
Cities Have an
Ecology Too
by Bruce Wallace
Cities survive and thrive even though most cannot provide food to sustain themselves nor the water their inhabitants
require. Pictured is one city famous for its beauty, San Francisco.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Theoretically, cities should not exist;
persons should be scattered more or
less uniformly over a rural (or forested)
countryside. But, you say, while
pointing to New York, Dallas, Rome,
and Paris, cities do exist. So much,
then, for your theory. It's just a theory,
like so much else in science.
Before abandoning the theory.
however, consider an analogous one: the
second law of thermodynamics. This
law states that useful energy is always
lost, never gained. The universe is
running down. Nevertheless, local
exceptions to this law abound; every
living organism is such an exception.
Every act that requires energy—whether
it is walking up a flight of stairs or
forming urine in the kidneys—is an
exception. These are, however, local
exceptions. They are the eddies and
whirlpools that form as the river of
energy flows inexorably downhill. In
particular, life on earth is possible only
because it taps into and uses energy
released by a declining star, our sun.
Ecologists tend to formulate
admonitions rather than laws. One such,
coined (I believe) by Professor Garrett
Hardin, is, "Thou shall not exceed the
carrying capacity of the environment."
For any group of organisms (including
human beings), the resources of the
environment are sufficient to sustain a
certain number of individuals, and no
more. These resources include nutrients,
water, oxygen (for most living things),
and physical space. Every individual,
whether a bacterium, a fly, or a person,
requires a certain amount of food, a
certain amount of water, oxygen with
which to burn its food, and space equal
to its body dimensions, if not more.
Whenever any of the.se individual
requirements, when multiplied by the
total number of individuals, exceeds the
amount that can be obtained from the
environment, life for at least some
individuals becomes impossible.
Two especially dismal aspects of the
resulting culling can be mentioned. As
if impelled by Parkinsonian logic, life
tends to increase to exhaust available
resources; the starving inhabitants of
sub-Saharan nations have not stemmed
the still-increasing populations of that
region. Second, if a clearcut basis for
culling the excess individuals does not
exist, all individuals may be fatally
injured in the ensuing struggle for
existence; it is no accident that the very
young, the weak, and the very old are
among the first victims of any famine.
The limitation imposed upon any
population by environmental resources
is, like the second law of
thermodynamics, a global limitation
which has its eddies, whirlpools, and
other exceptions. Urban centers are such
exceptions for human populations: the
inhabitants of neither Hong Kong nor
New York produce sufficient food to
sustain themselves. Nor does the ground
these cities occupy contain the water
required by their inhabitants.
Nevertheless, these cities exist and have
existed for several centuries. The basis
for such anomalies—the basis for and the
consequences of these exceptions to the
general ecological admonition—must be
understood not only by city dwellers
but by those who provide them their
necessary support.
Exceptions Cannot Become the Rule
Unlike the children of Lake Woebegone,
all of whom are above average, densely
populated urban centers (where the
demand for resources exceeds the local
environment's ability to provide) must
be counterbalanced by areas where
production exceeds the needs of local
inhabitants. Counterbalancing alone is
not sufficient; an incentive that causes
needed resources to flow from their
place of origin to the dependent city (or
otherwise over-crowded urban area) is
essential. The inhabitants of Hong Kong
and of the Netherlands are fed by others
only because they provide worthwhile
services in return. In my opinion, for
one million persons to set off to sea in a
steel and concrete tetrahedonal structure!
as once suggested by R. Buckminister
Fuller would be extremely foolish.
While floating at sea, what services
would they provide that would assure
the scheduled arrival of ships bearing
grain and other essential foodstuffs?
Persons contemplating a life at sea
should remember a second, better-
Mardi Gras in New Orleans provides
residents and tourists with a pre-Lenten
frolic. Based on complex, interconnected
systems, cities have an ecology of their
own.
known admonition: "Out of sight, out of
mind."
Dwellers of cities located in the
midwestern United States, even of a
large city such as Chicago, generally
appreciate the role of American farmers
in feeding not only Americans but also
many persons living abroad. The same
cannot be said of all New Yorkers, nor
of many other persons living in coastal
metropolises. A colleague who was
lecturing at Barnard College on the yield
per acre and total acreage planted in
corn in midwestern states was
questioned by a student: Why. she
wanted to know, should she be
interested in corn: she bought only a
few frozen packages each
year—packages she could easily forego.
This student lacked any concept of the
food web as it applied to her and her
fellow New Yorkers: from grain to pigs,
cattle, or chickens to supermarket
counters. Unfortunately, such ignorance
breeds thoughtless schemes promoting
coast-to-coast skyscrapers and high-rise
apartments. Under current agricultural
practices, four or five acres of arable
land are needed to feed each U.S.
citizen (as well as other persons living
in Europe, Asia, and Africa). Divided
into quarter-acre lots, four or five acres
would house 80 persons or
more—persons who would then require
300 to 400 acres for nutritional support.
Similar but more complex relationships
apply to water supplies as well; here.
however, we must recogm/i; that
Memphis' urine homines Now Orleans'
drinking water.
The Road to the Dump
Grows Shorter
The above phrase was the alternative
title for a lecture delivered at Cornel!
University 20 years ago. Today, a barge
full of refuse sits in a Long Island
Harbor after a multi-nation ocoan cruise
in search of a (tump site. Waste
management has become crucial tor the
continued well-being of urban dwellers.
Landfills have become just that filled.
In becoming filled, many have managed
to contaminate subterranean water
supplies—aquifers that may require
thousands of years to recover. When
confronted with a spate of news articles
and TV programs dealing with the
urgency of waste disposal problems, one
urban housewife asked, "Why can't we
do as we have been doing? I put my
garbage by the curb, and the garbageman
takes it away."
As a flagrant violator of Hardin's
admonition, any city must be assured
that food arrives steadily (every day for
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
perishables) and that wastes (garbage
and body wastes) are removed. If the
inward flow is interrupted, residents are
quickly reduced to eating mice, rats,
and dogs, as many European city
dwellers learned during World War II.
The Berlin airlift of 1948-1949
demonstrated the enormity of any effort
to maintain life in a blockaded city of
two million inhabitants. Conversely, an
interruption of the outward flow of
wastes quickly inundates a city in filth.
This point has been recorded pictorially
for New York and other major cities
following strikes by garbage collectors:
only days are required before plastic
garbage bags are stacked shoulder high
on nearly every sidewalk.
Free as Air We Breathe
City dwellers rely on others to produce
their food and to receive, store, or
incinerate their garbage. Fresh air,
however, comes with every breeze,
down every air shaft, and even
penetrates the underground subways
and metros. Or, so it has seemed in the
past.
Because of forces—natural and
otherwise—that determine where
persons will aggregate and form urban
areas, cities are prone to air pollution.
Coastal areas are, at times, washed by
fresh sea breezes; to experience a sunny,
early summer day in New York City
with a fresh wind from Battery Park is
to experience one of nature's beauties.
Too often, however, cities lie in
hollows, in valleys carved by ancient
rivers, and on the bottoms of extinct
lakes. And, again too often,
meteorological conditions (atmospheric
"inversions") arise that trap volatile
pollutants over the city like a murky
soup in a shallow bowl. The smog of
Los-Angeles has been notorious for
decades. The air pollution problems of
Phoenix and Denver are of more recent
origin, caused, ironically, by the influx
of persons (with their automobiles)
seeking fresh air. The "smoake" of
London was lamented in a pamphlet
written in 1661; historic relics in
Venice, Athens, and in other European
cities are literally melting because of
acid rain and other corrosive chemical
emissions. Finally, industrial accidents
account ever more frequently for urban
disasters such as Donora, Pennsylvania;
Bhopal, India; and Chernobyl, USSR.
Decisions, Decisions
Urban dwellers, much more so than
their country cousins, rely upon the
smooth operation of a complex
transportation network. Trucks carrying
goods into the city arrive continuously
on interstate highways; those hauling
garbage (as well as the commercial
products of the city's inhabitants)
lumber outward. Railroads and ships
play their roles in maintaining a healthy
city life. Underground are the aqueducts
that bring water into the city and the
sewers that collect hundreds of
thousands of gallons of human waste
daily, even hourly.
The proper functioning of urban
facilities does not depend directly upon
Fresh air comes with every
breeze, down every air shaft,
and even penetrates the
underground subways and
metros. Or, so it has seemed in
the past
individual involvement; the city as a
political institution is responsible for
maintaining essential services. The
individual persons who dwell within
the city do need to eat, they do need
water for drinking and washing, and
they do need to eliminate body wastes.
These needs are virtually hourly needs.
During a two-month stay in
Alexandria, Egypt, I frequently walked
from my hotel to the American
Information Center. At one intersection,
I was obliged to detour from the
sidewalk into street traffic because of a
large, fetid curbside puddle. An
American acquaintance called my
attention to the source of the pollution:
a broken stand pipe. The city sewer was
clogged at that point (the system was
built for use by 250,000 persons but
now serves several million), he
explained; therefore, in order that the
toilets and sinks in the building might
drain properly, one of the apartment
dwellers had smashed the stand pipe
with a heavy hammer. Now, the
facilities worked well within the
building but a horrible mess
accumulated on the street.
Careful thought will reveal that
smashing a stand pipe, messy as it
seems to the pedestrian, is not an
irrational (illegal, perhaps, but not
irrational) act by a citizen who has been
forced to solve a problem whose proper
solution is the community's
responsibility. Urine and feces are, of
necessity, part of man's lot. For a family
to tend their bodily functions on the
street solves nothing; walking to the
beach would be no better. Until the city
sewer is unclogged, the broken stand
pipe, at least, assures individual
privacy.
Urban centers, because they violate
Hardin's admonition, generate problems
whose solution must be sought in
institutions operating at the proper
level: the proper disposition of personal
waste is a matter the community must
solve; the proper disposition of
community wastes is a matter the state
must solve; the proper disposition of
state wastes is a matter for the nation to
solve; and, finally, the proper
disposition of a nation's waste (the
industrial emissions that result in acid
rain, for example) is a matter that
supra-national organizations must solve.
The homeless persons in large American
cities cannot be asked to cease eating,
drinking, or creating individual wastes;
city governments must cope with
problems that accompany each
individual's existence. The municipal
government of Nice, France, cannot
purify its beaches with phenol and
perfume when the pollution arrives by
sea from beachside communities that
line the entire Mediterranean coast.
Epilogue
Many professional ecologists have had
rural origins; their interest in biology
often has sprung from childhood
experiences. One should not, on that
account, believe that these ecologists
fail to appreciate cities, or, worse, that
they dislike cities and city dwellers.
The proper understanding is that cities
are entities defying Hardin's admonition
not to exceed the carrying capacity of
the environment. Cities, in an ecological
sense, are analogous to living organisms
in a thermodynamic sense: their
existence requires a constant input of
energy derived from outsider sources.
Consequently, unless firm lines of
communication, transportation, and
commerce have been established with
less urban nations, each nation should
provide for a proper balance between its
own urban and rural life: cities, to
thrive, must be fed, watered, and cared
for. Cared for properly, however, they
can—like living organisms—exhibit
exquisite beauty. 0
(Dr. Wallace is University Distinguished
Professor at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University and is a
widely published author.)
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A Look at
NEPA
The National Environmental
Policy Act
The Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway.
Massive public works were one of the
reasons NEPA was enacted. The aim is
to understand and deal with
environmental impacts before such
projects are built.
The science of ecology stresses the
inter-connectedness of all aspects of
the environment. The Nation,]I
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
which became law in 1970, is aimed at
insuring that the activities of the federal
government itself stay in harmony with
the environment. The following section
treats the overall implementation of this
law, and explains EPA's role.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
21
-------
EPA and NEPA:
Challenges and Goals
by Jennifer Joy Wilson
Nearly two decades ago, in February
1969, Congress began to consider a
whole range of new legislation designed
to protect our nation's environment. As
these laws were debated, questions
arose. Protect the environment against
whom? The majority said industry. For
what reason? To safeguard human
health, or so most people seemed to say,
although there was a great deal of
discussion at the time about "ecology"
and protecting the "biosphere."
But our nation's legislators did not
forget the need to regulate the
regulators—the officials in charge of the
vast expanse of federal land and
facilities scattered throughout the
United States. Their concerns were
enshrined in two extremely important
laws: the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of
the Clean Air Act.
Both NEPA and the Clean Air Act
were written with broader objectives in
view, but they had precedent-setting
impact on one specific aspect of
American life: the way federal activities
and facilities are planned and
monitored to avoid adverse
environmental ramifications. Also, both
NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act have helped keep alive the
ecological overview that so often
becomes obscured as the news media,
the public:, and government officials
debate the health effects of individual
contaminants.
NEPA
Both NEPA and Section 309 took effect
in 1970, the first at the very beginning
of that pivotal year and the second at
the very end. President Nixon signed
NEPA into law on January 1, 1970. The
symbolic significance of the date was
not lost on anyone involved; the White
House had, in fact, chosen it to
emphasize the dawn of a new era of
environmental awareness. The President
declared: "The 1970s absolutely must be
the years when America pays its debt to
the past by reclaiming the purity of its
air, its waters, and our living
environment. It is literally now or
never."
The provisions of NEPA were broad
enough to warrant the ballyhoo. Section
101 of the new law instructed the
federal government to use "all
practicable means and measures...to
create and maintain conditions under
which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony, and fulfill the
social and economic and other
requirements of present and future
generations of Americans."
These goals applied to society at
large, but NEPA did not overlook the
need to watch the watchdog. The
federal government was told to
coordinate its own plans, functions,
programs, and resources so as to avoid
adverse impact on the environment.
NEPA directed all federal agencies to
determine the potential environmental
impacts of their proposed activities and
to consider those impacts in their
formal decision-making process.
While NEPA did not contain
regulatory requirements or penalties that
could force an agency to take specific
actions, the new law did lead to
significant alterations in the basic
federal decision-making process. In
weighing the advantages or
shortcomings of a proposed project,
federal agencies could no longer confine
their deliberations to traditional factors
such as economic costs and engineering
feasibility. Agencies were now required
to address and fully consider the impact
their actions might have on the
environment.
If the project in question was
expected to have a significant adverse
effect, the agency proposing it was
required to prepare an environmental
impact statement fully disclosing its
potential impact and, more importantly,
providing a sound rationale for carrying
it out in the way planned.
In addition to preparing
environmental impact statements, NEPA
called on the lead agency to consult
with and obtain comments from any
other federal agency possessing
jurisdiction or having special expertise
with respect to the environmental
impacts involved in the proposed
action. The goal of this requirement was
to reduce agency bias, or "tunnel
vision," as well as to balance the
differing goals of federal agencies and
meet the government's overall
responsibility for preserving and
enhancing ecological values.
The central problem with NEPA, in
the view of many experts, was its lack
of enforcement powers. Supervised by
an executive oversight body called the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
NEPA's interagency review and
consultation process spelled out steps
federal agencies were to follow. But it
had no enforcement powers to ensure
that the process was actually carried out
or that final plans for given projects did,
in fact, reflect a constructive adjustment
to valid opinions offered by
commenting agencies.
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
At the very end of 1970, when the new
Clean Air Act was under discussion on
Capitol Hill, Congress decided to add a
provision that would give greater
momentum to the goals of NEPA. The
legislators decided to insert in the Clean
Air Act a special section that
considerably expanded EPA's role in
environmental oversight of other federal
agencies.
Under NEPA, all federal agencies,
including EPA, had the responsibility to
comment on matters under which they
held "jurisdiction by law or special
expertise." The Clean Air Act's Section
309, however, gave EPA a larger
mandate. The Agency was now to
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Our nation's legislators did not
forget the need to regulate the
regulators—the officials in
charge of the vast expanse of
federal land and facilities
scattered throughout the
United States.
Washington, D.C., headquarters for many federal agencies.
Washington Convention and Visitors Association
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
23
-------
comment on "any matter relating to" its
duties, responsibilities, or authority,
including those only "indirectly" related
to the Agency's specific statutes. Section
309 also called upon EPA to review and
comment on certain federal agency
actions that were excluded from NEPA's
impact statement requirements,
including proposed regulations and
proposed legislation.
Clearly, Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act magnified EPA's role in
environmental oversight of actions by
other federal agencies. The young
Agency was suddenly charged with a
major new responsibility:
comprehensive review of the potential
environmental impacts of nearly all
major federal agency actions, regardless
of whether they met the NKPA
threshold of "actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment."
The rationale was that the
environmental impact statements that
federal agencies would be developing
under NEPA should be subject to review
not just by CEQ but also by
environmental specialists at the nation's
major environmental agency.
Furthermore, EPA was charged with
making the results of such review
available to the public. Overall, the
Agency's 309 work was to complement
and reinforce the CEQ's mission under
NEI'A.
Over the past 17 years, EPA has
reviewed and publicly commented on
almost all of the more than 30,000
documents submitted to it by other
federal agencies. These documents have
informed EPA of a wide variety of
proposed regulations, legislation,
contraction projects, and other types of
"action" being considered by the many
arms of the federal government.
While EPA's oversight role has not
always made the Agency popular with
our sister federal agencies, we believe
our role has been both constructive and
valuable. Today, environmental
planning is second nature to
government decision-makers in a way
inconceivable in 1970. The net result is
a safer and healthier environment for all
of us.
One factor has been critical to the
success of EPA's environmental review
process: early and open communication
with other federal agencies. The Agency
has pursued this approach to an extent
not required either by NEPA or Section
309 and built up a credible and
constructive process of interagency
communication and consultation. In
doing so, EPA has been able to take a
more active role in identifying and
preventing potential adverse impacts
associated with proposed federal
actions.
There is a broad consensus that the
evolution of the environmental review
process over the past 17 years has given
substance to NEPA's courageous goal of
creating and maintaining "productive
harmony" between man and nature. It is
fair to say that most federal agencies
now fully endorse the environmental
review process and have made great
While EPA's oversight role has
not always made the Agency
popular with our sister federal
agencies, we believe our role
has been both constructive
and valuable.
strides toward integrating environmental
consultation into their decision-making
process.
Success in the environmental
consultation process has resulted in real
environmental improvements. Federal
projects are now better sited and better
designed; in a number of instances,
proposals that have embodied
unacceptable environmental impacts
have been modified or canceled.
This is how the NEPA/Section 309
process works at EPA as we begin 1988:
The extent to which the Agency gets
involved depends on the level of
environmental impacts of a proposed
project; the ability and willingness of
the proposing federal agency to mitigate
those impacts; and the level of
responsibility EPA has over the type of
impacts at issue.
If the action is a federal project to be
located in or on a specific site, the
appropriate EPA regional office has the
jurisdiction and delegated responsibility
for carrying out the Section 309 review
and working with the proposing federal
agency to resolve any problems. If the
action by the proposing federal agency
is legislative or regulatory, or if it is
presented in a programmatic or
multi-regional environmental impact
statement, the Section 309 review is
conducted directly at EPA headquarters,
in the Office of Federal Activities,
which is part of the Office of External
Affairs.
For federal projects that involve a
NEPA environmental impact statement,
EPA headquarters becomes involved if
the region finds that the proposed
action in the draft EIS is
"environmentally unsatisfactory" or that
the draft EIS is "inadequate" to assess
the potentially significant
environmental impacts of proposed
actions. In such cases, headquarters
must approve the regional comment
letter before it is sent. In addition.
headquarters works with regional
personnel to inform interested parties
about the EPA action and to assist the
region, as needed, in meeting with the
proposing federal agency to resolve
controversial issues.
The entire process is carried out with
several objectives in view: not just to
protect the environment but to ensure
EPA's independence, to maintain a
cooperative atmosphere congenial to the
resolution of conflict, and to keep the
public informed of major developments.
The challenge is to maintain and
improve a process that is now both
mature and respected.
As EPA's Assistant Administrator for
External Affairs, I have made a firm
commitment to those goals. I am
particularly interested in strengthening
EPA's process of consultation and
negotiation under NEPA and Section
309. One initiative currently under way
should give the process both higher
visibility and a more accurate image.
We are strengthening EPA's
NEPA/Section 309 communication
strategy so the Agency will be better
able to defend its case when
controversial opinions are handed down
on EISs from other agencies.
Many other challenges remain. We at
EPA—and our colleagues at CEQ
and other federal agencies—will strive
to meet them, and as we move ahead in
the future, we genuinely hope man and
his environment will be brought into
ecological balance and "productive
harmony." Q
(Wilson is Assistant Administrator for
the EPA Office of External Affairs.)
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
How The NEPA/Section 309 Process Works
EPA exercises its environmental
review program under two general
statutory authorities: (1) the
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and the
accompanying regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), and (2) the Administrator's
specific responsibility under
Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act—to review and comment on
the environmental impact of any
legislation, regulation, or major
action proposed by federal
agencies.
Except for projects that are
categorically excluded, federal
agencies must prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA)
and/or an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). About
10,000 EAs—generally prepared for
projects with minimal
environmental impacts—are
prepared annually. Several
hundred EISs are also prepared, all
of which are processed through
and reviewed by EPA. EISs are
generally prepared for projects that
the proposing agency views as
having significant prospective
environmental impacts.
Whereas only about one-fifth of
EAs are reviewed by EPA, all EISs
are reviewed as part of the
Agency's environmental review
program. Most reviews are
coordinated by the environmental
review staff within each region,
with assistance from appropriate
program offices (air, water, solid
waste, etc.).
General program oversight and
management is under the Assistant
Administrator for External Affairs
and, specifically, the Office of
Federal Activities (OFA). OFA also
coordinates the review of
nationwide, programmatic, and
other types of EIS that are not the
province of a particular region,
Finally, OFA works in close
cooperation with the regions on
EIS reviews of controversial
projects that would trigger
significant, adverse environmental
effects.
Both the regions and
headquarters OFA use a special
rating system to evaluate EISs
submitted by other agencies. This
system evaluates not just the
environmental impact of a
proposed action but also the
adequacy of the impact statement
itself.
Environmental impacts are rated:
• LO—Lack of Objection.
• EC—Environmental concerns.
The EPA review has identified
environmental impacts that should
be avoided. Mitigation measures
may be required.
• EO—Environmental Objections.
EPA has identified impacts that
must be corrected to provide
adequate environmental
protection.
• EU—Environmentally
Unsatisfactory. The review has
identified highly objectionable
adverse environmental impacts. If
the potential impacts are not
corrected in the final EIS stage, tin;
proposal will be recommended for
referral to CEQ.
Numerical ratings are assigned
to EISs as a measure of their
adequacy level:
1—Adequate. No further
information required by EPA.
2—Insufficient Information. EPA
believes the information presented
in the EIS is insufficient to fully
assess the environmental impacts
that should be avoided to fully
protect the environment; or the EIS
has not analyzed a reasonable
alternative that might have less
severe impacts.
3—Inadequate. EPA does not
believe the EIS adequately assesses
potentially significant
environmental impacts; or EPA has
identified reasonable alternatives
that should be analyzed in view of
the significant impacts from the
other alternatives. EPA believes a
revised or supplemental EIS is
required.
If a final EIS receives an
"environmentally unsatisfactory"
rating from EPA, and no agreement
on a new approach is feasible, EPA
can refer the project and its EIS to
CEQ for further investigation, in
accordance with the Administrator's
responsibilities under Section 309
of the Clean Air Act.
EPA and NEPA:
Cases in Point
by Richard E. Sanderson
One of the first pieces of legislation
passed at the dawn of
the environmental era was the National
Environmental Policy Act. or NEPA.
which became law on New Year's Day.
1970. Soon after, EPA itself was created
by executive reorganization, largely
from pieces of several other agencies.
Perhaps because they were born at
about the same time and have similar
acronyms, NEPA and EPA are often
linked together in the public
consciousness. [Even at EPA, I
sometimes hear NEPA referred to as the
"National Environmental Protection
Act.")
Historical Ties
But the linkage between NEPA and EPA
goes beyond public perception. On the
very last day of 1970, the Clean Air Act
Amendments were signed into law.
Among its new amendments was a
little-noticed provision. Section 309,
that forged a legal link between the
fledgling EPA and the National
Environmental Policy Act. Section 309
made EPA a central clearinghouse for
ensuring an on-the-record review of
proposed actions by other federal
agencies that might adversely affect tin;
environment. It further required that if
EPA determined that any proposal w.is
"unsatisfactory from the standpoint of
public health or welfare or
environmental quality," EPA's
Administrator was to m
-------
charged with thoroughly different
missions. CEQ oversees the
implementation of the National
Environmental Policy Act, which
requires (as numerous courts
subsequently have confirmed) federal
agencies to assess and make public the
impacts of their activities on the
environment. (EPA is also legally bound
by NEPA. though many of its
actions—presumed to be statutorily
protective of the environment—are
exempt from direct application of the
statute.)
It is EPA, however, that is the nation's
primary environmental regulatory
agency responsible for cleaning up and
maintaining the environment. As
understanding of the magnitude of
KPA's tusk became clearer, and as the
more insidious of the nation's
environmental problems were perceived
as being linked to dreaded human
diseases such as cancer, EPA's emphasis
has shaded more towards protecting
human health through pollution
abatement, rather than restoration of the
natural environment.
To some extent, this has led some
people to see EPA as the Agency
concerned with environmental threats to
human health, while CEQ—although not
without its health concerns—is seen as
the guardian of the natural environment.
This is an artificial dichotomy. Both
organisations share both goals.
The links between CEQ and EPA
lorged by NEPA and Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act are still working well,
both in day-to-day reality and in the
public consciousness. Perhaps because
of the preeminent role of EPA as the
nation's premier environmental
regulator, EPA's opinion on issues
touching on human health and the
natural environment carries special
authority with the public, Congress, and
other federal agencies,
Through its NEPA and Section 309
review responsibilities, EPA now is
generally .seen as the "environmental
watchdog" of the federal government,
and that is exactly the role Congress
envisioned for the Agency nearly two
decades ago.
Negotiation and Consultation
Being an "environmental watchdog" is
no easy task, and it involves a wide
range of contacts outside the federal
government. In the Office of Federal
Activities (OFA), EPA's "watchdog" role
means working intensively with federal,
state, and local agencies to lessen
threats to the environment posed by
various federally sponsored proposals.
The Agency pursues its goals through
a multi-pronged negotiation and
consultation strategy that encompasses:
early involvement and consultation with
the federal agency as it develops the
project (a process referred to as
"scoping"); coordination of project and
environmental impact statement (EIS)
review; and negotiation through the
entire structure of the department or
agency to encourage mitigation or
elimination of the environmentally
damaging aspects of its projects or
programs.
If, for particularly damaging projects,
negotiation and consultation fail to
satisfy EPA's environmental concerns,
the Administrator may refer a proposed
project to CEQ for resolution under
Section 309.
Some recent case studies show how
the system works:
• A nationwide grasshopper control
program.
• Expansion of O'Hare airport in
Chicago.
• A project to increase farmland through
channelization of streams on the
Delmarva Peninsula.
• Removal and destruction of obsolete
chemical warfare agents.
• An increased drinking-water supply
for Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Grasshopper Control
Two years ago in the spring of 1986,
EPA reviewed the Department of
Agriculture grasshopper control program
proposed by the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The
APHIS plan called for combating
grasshopper infestation on the nation's
rangelands by spraying with three
pesticides: malathion, carbaryl, and
acephate. APHIS wanted to move ahead
fast on this plan to defeat a scourge that
threatened the livelihood of thousands
of apprehensive cattlemen.
While EPA recognized the need for
the basic project, our reviewers were
concerned about the safety of the three
chemicals involved: their potential for
damaging surface waters, threatening
wildlife (especially endangered species),
and contaminating the meat of cattle fed
on the sprayed forage. EPA wanted
APHIS to consider Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) alternatives,
including non-toxic biological pest
control.
As might be expected, APHIS staff
initially resisted EPA's
recommendations but became more
amenable when they learned that our
Office of Pesticides Programs would
provide them with substantial
additional information about alternative
approaches.
One of the first steps was
appointment of interagency scientific
and technical committees, including
representatives from EPA, APHIS, the
Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Agricultural Research
Service, and the National Park Service.
Each agency brought to the table a
different perspective; these were
revealed in general discussion at the
first meetings, which also led to the
formulation of a programmatic base.
After input from EPA experts,
followed by further negotiation and
consultation, a decision was reached at
APHIS to develop a new EIS for 1987.
The program's managers also decided
that a five-year, multi-agency,
100,000-acre demonstration and
research project should be established to
examine the full range of potential IPM
techniques for grasshopper control.
In 1986, EPA reviewed the Department
of Agriculture grasshopper control
program, which proposed spraying
rangelands with three pesticides. EPA
wanted to consider alternatives.
Currently, interagency scientific and
technical committees from eight
agencies are participating in future plans.
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Such techniques can boost productivity
and cut costs while ensuring the
survival of vital rangeland ecosystems.
APHIS' willingness to work with
EPA has been gratifying. Plans are
under way for EPA to participate in the
design and evaluation of APHIS' future
program objectives. As one of our staff
working on this project says, "APHIS
people now call us whenever they're
thinking of starting a new project,
which means that EPA is in on new or
expanded program design even before
an EIS is drafted. Our various concerns
become interchangeable at the very
beginning."
O'Hare Airport Expansion
The O'Hare Airport project is another
example of negotiation and consultation
being used at the early stages of a
project to determine the environmental
impacts that should be considered
within the scope of the EIS. At
"scoping" conferences, representatives
of concerned agencies meet to discuss
all possible environmental aspects of a
proposed federal construction or
program action.
Five years ago, EPA's Region 5
participated in a meeting about the
proposed expansion of O'Hare Airport
in Chicago, one of the busiest terminals
in the nation. The regional staff was
concerned with the possible impact of
heavier airport automobile traffic on
air-quality standards. EPA's review of
the draft EIS developed by the Federal
Aviation Administration in conjunction
with the City of Chicago raised issues
concerning air quality and noise. The
final EIS still concerned the region,
because if background, or "normal,"
levels of carbon monoxide and nitrous
oxide were added to the projected extra
amounts of CO and NOx, National
Ambient Air Quality Standards would
be exceeded. That meant a measurable
effect on the health of infants, the sick,
the elderly, and exercising athletes.
The air-pollution models used to
prepare the EIS also appeared
inadequate. The region suggested that
agreed-upon mitigation measures be put
in place immediately. However, the
Chicago authorities refused to accept
immediate implementation of the
measures. At the same time, a local
group opposed to airport expansion on
grounds of noise and congestion urged
EPA to refer the matter to CEQ and
sued to have the EIS set aside. A
complete impasse seemed likely.
By persevering in the negotiation and
consultation process, the parties
involved were able to break the logjam.
EPA emphasized to Chicago officials
that a referral to CEQ under Section 309
was a statutory possibility should air
quality violations continue. As a result,
EPA and Chicago were able to agree on
specific mitigation measures, coupled
with a two-year monitoring program.
Those measures, surprisingly, had
nothing to do with aircraft (jet exhaust
over the runways disperses quickly) but
focused on the siting of parking lot
entrances, placement of toll booths, and
new traffic controls at the terminal
pickup and drop-off points, which
could limit emissions from the growing
number of vehicles in the area.
Chesapeake Bay
Protection of unique areas has been a
major focus of the environmental review
program. For example, EPA Region 3's
strong support for wetlands and the
Chesapeake Bay led to the cancellation
of a long-standing ditching project that
would have had deleterious effects on
the Bay.
The Upper Chester River Watershed
Project, proposed by the Department of
Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), would have affected about 240
miles of the river's tributaries in four
Maryland and Delaware counties.
Eleven years in the planning, the project
involved straightening, deepening, and
widening stream channels to promote
better drainage on several thousand
acres within these Delmarva Peninsula
counties.
Region 3 was concerned about the
losses the project might have inflicted
on riverbank habitats and wetlands
associated with these tributaries. In
addition, changing former bottomlands
to agricultural use would have increased
the loading of nonpoint source
agricultural run-off to the Chesapeake
Bay, thus carrying increased soil and
agricultural chemicals into that already
fragile environment.
Early last year, Region 3's
Administrator, James M. Seif, used the
region's comment letter on the
supplemental draft EIS to rate each of
the various drainage alternatives as
environmentally unsatisfactory. By
working with the SCS and interested
environmental groups, the region saw
the project reconsidered, then dropped:
a true testimony that when all
environmental concerns are understood,
good public policy decisions are the
likely result.
Chemical Weapons
Demilitarization
One of the most nationally sensitive
projects to come under the purview of
EPA's environmental review system has
been our involvement in working with
the Army to plan for destruction of the
nation's stockpiles of obsolete chemical
weapons. Congress requires that (lit1
process be completed by September
1994.
These stockpiles—located at eight
military installations in Indian.).
Kentucky, Maryland, Alabama,
Arkansas, Colorado, Utah, and
Washington—include explosives and
non-explosive munitions and bulk
containers filled with various deadly
nerve agents and mustard gas th.it are
from 17 to more than 40 years old.
Some have been placed in protectivi)
overpacks to keep the chemicals from
leaking out. The overpacks have in turn
been stored in isolated, specially
designed, and reinforced concrete
igloos.
EPA and the states have direct
permitting authority over the disposal
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The Army's draft ELS presented three
alternative scenarios for disposal, each
involving construction of
RCRA-permitted incinerators of
extremely high destruction efficiency.
The options involved: site-specific
incinerators at each of the eight sites:
incinerator construction at two regions]
sites, with transportation of the
munitions from each site to the closest
regional site; or construction of an
incinerator at one national site, with
haulage to that situ from the other .seven
sites.
EPA's rating of the draft EIS indicated
that certain information was needed to
satisfy the Agency's environmental
concerns. The final EIS was released in
late December 1986. Elizabeth
Cotsworth of the Office of Solid Waste,
Sandy Williams of OFA, and other EPA
staff are continuing to work closely with
military planners to help them reduce
the risks of an accidental release,
minimize possible environmental effects
on- and off-base, and assist the Army as
they make their way through EPA's
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
27
-------
various permit requirements. The Army,
eager to reduce potential risk to human
health and the environment, has
welcomed EFA's assistance.
Fort Smith Water Supply
The City of Fort Smith, planned to
dam Lee Creek, a pristine Arkansas
River tributary that flows through parts
of Oklahoma and northwestern
Arkansas. The proposed design
included a small hydroelectric plant, a
feature that brought the project under
the licensing authority of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
EPA Region 6's review of the draft EIS
indicated several areas of environmental
concern. The EIS did not address the
second phase of the project, which
called for significant expansion of the
reservoir to accommodate 70 million
gallons of water per day (gpd), and there
was no apparent consideration of other
acceptable alternatives. The draft EIS
was a candidate for an environmentally
unacceptable rating, with potential
referral to CEQ by EPA's Administrator.
The Agency then entered into a
protracted negotiation and consultation
process with FERC, the City of Fort
Smith, the states of Arkansas and
Oklahoma, and the Corps of Engineers.
The need for a reservoir of that size was
reviewed, as well as other ways to meet
the city's future water demands.
KI'A asked that the planners repair
leaks that were costing Fort Smith 16
percent of the water in its pipes and
storage elements. Further, the Agency
suggested that the community consider,
as an alternative, using treated water
taken directly from the Arkansas River
rather than from its tributary.
There was great political support
locally for the project, and FERC
initially opposed EPA's
recommendations. But Region 6
continued its efforts. As a result of these
negotiations, all parties accepted a
compromise involving a 10 million gpd
reservoir. In addition, the compromise
called for leaks in the existing system to
be fixed and for other water
conservation methods, as well as
additional use of Arkansas River water,
to be considered. Through the NEPA
process, the City of Fort Smith will have
sufficient water into the next century,
and the damage to the environs of Lee
Creek will be minimized.
The negotiation and consultation
process, backed by the potential of a
CEQ referral, is highly persuasive.
Approximately one-fourth of the
original draft EIS proposals reviewed by
EPA exhibit potential environmental
problems. That number drops to about
five percent for final EIS submissions.
Reviews of federal EISs show that
environmental factors play a direct role
in the choice of the Agency's project
alternative. Although final choices are
not always the environmentally
preferable alternatives, NEPA's goal of
requiring federal agencies to consider
Plans to dam Lee Creek near Fort Smith, Arkansas, were opposed by EPA's Region
G, which felt there might be other solutions to providing additional water for the
city. Fort Smith had already been giving high priority to stopping water loss in
many ways such as replacing this 12-inch pipe, which cracked longitudinally.
28
environmental issues in their
decision-making continues to be met.
NEPA Compliance by EPA
In addition to its review of EISs
prepared by other agencies, EPA must
assure compliance with NEPA for
several of its own activities. These
include construction grants and
EPA-issued new source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits under the Clean Water Act, as
well as research and development and
facility-support activities. Also, in the
years since 1974, the Agency has
followed a policy of voluntarily
preparing EISs in some areas where it
has been exempted from NEPA,
including ocean disposal site
designation, and selected rulemaking
actions under the Clean Air Act, the
Noise Control Act, the Atomic Energy
Act, and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
EPA's own NEPA compliance
integrates overall environmental
assessment into the decision-making
process for specific program activities.
We also use EISs as a vehicle for public
communication and participation. A few
examples will illustrate the Agency's
approach.
North Carolina Barrier
In 1982, EPA's Region 4 office was
concerned with the impact of federally
financed development on the North
Carolina barrier islands. EPA had
received six plans for wastewater
treatment facilities on the barrier
islands; five of these plans proposed
regional treatment systems to replace
existing local treatment works.
The region had three major concerns
about these plans:
• Would the increase in treatment
capacity stimulate excessive growth?
• What would be the impact of this
growth on sensitive island environments
such as dunes and wetlands?
• Would the local communities have the
financial ability for plant construction
and operation?
As a result of these concerns, it was
decided to develop an EIS on
wastewater treatment for the North
Carolina barrier islands. The proposed
EIS was issued in June 1983 and,
following public review and comment,
was issued as a final EIS in January
1984. The EIS looked at options for
wastewater treatment ranging from
EPA JOURNAL
-------
continued use of existing facilities to
construction of the regional treatment
plants originally proposed.
The EIS also examined water-quality
problems related to wastewater
treatment and development. An
especially important finding was that
the impact of septic tank discharge on
shellfish bed closure had been
over-estimated—and that nonpoint
run-off resulting from development was
a larger factor in such closures than had
been thought. The adverse impact of
development on ground water was also
assessed.
The EIS found that development
resulting from regional treatment
systems could well have adverse
environmental impacts that would
diminish the benefit to water quality
from additional waste treatment. As a
solution to this problem, the EIS
identified a strategy for barrier island
communities to more precisely
determine vvastewater treatment needs
and to balance these needs against
environmental impacts and financial
considerations. This will allow barrier
island communities to individually
document and address problems
associated with existing treatment
plants, rather than making an overall
decision to get rid of them in favor of
regional systems.
Hudson River PCB
Contamination
Another situation where the EIS process
was used as a framework for
decision-making concerned PCB
contamination in the Hudson River. In
Section 116 of the Clean Water Act,
Congress authorized an EPA
demonstration project to clean up these
toxic materials. Although this action
was exempted from NEPA, Region 2
determined that an EIS would be a
useful means to develop cleanup
alternatives, to assess the full range of
the impacts of those alternatives on
natural and cultural resources, and to
inform the public of the Agency's
reasoning on this very controversial
case.
The final EIS issued in 1982 identified
a cleanup alternative involving dredging
and land disposal. However, a
subsequent lawsuit concerning the
disposal option has required the region
to reconsider its favored alternative. As
a result, EPA—in cooperation with the
Army Corps of Engineers and the state
of New York—is in the process of
developing a supplemental EIS, which
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
is scheduled to be issued in final form
in early to mid-1988. In addition to
assessing other disposal sites, the
current analysis has identified an
alternative that involves concentrating
dredging in the most contaminated areas
and thereby maximizing the
environmental benefit of the cleanup
investment.
According to Region 2, the EIS
process has been an effective means of
coordinating the analysis of alternatives
among EPA, other fed'eral agencies, the
state, and the public. It has also been an
effective means of addressing the full
Through its NEPA and Section
309 review responsibilities,
EPA is now generally seen as
the "environmental watchdog"
of the federal government.
range of impacts that dredging,
transport, and construction of
containment facilities can have on
human health, wildlife, sensitive
environmental areas (especially
wetlands), and cultural resources. It has
led to the development of mitigation
measures, such as monitoring during
and after cleanup, as well as steps to
protect wetlands.
Red Dog Mine
In 1983, Region 10 prepared an EIS in
connection with an EPA National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit decision on a proposal by a
Canadian mining firm for a lead/zinc
mine on native lands in northwest
Alaska. Two environmental issues were
of principal concern: the effect a
57-mile access road would have on the
Cape Krusenstern National Monument,
and the potentially toxic impacts
mining would have on the Wulik River,
which is used by Alaska natives for
subsistence fishing. In addition, the
permit decision required extensive
negotiation and consultation with the
state, Alaska natives, and the
Department of the Interior, which was
required to obtain both Presidential and
congressional approval for any
development in the national monument
area.
The final EIS was issued jointly by
EPA and the Department of the Interior
in September 1984. The EIS analysis
resulted in an approach to siting and
operation of the mine that will actually
reduce zinc contamination of waters
from naturally occurring levels. By
examining the EIS, EPA and Interior
were able to assess alternative access
routes. As a result, they determined that
the route through the national
monument was actually the alternative
with the least environmental impact.
This addressed environmentalists'
concerns and provided a good basis for
getting Presidential and Congressional
approval of this option.
Some Current Issues
The examples just discussed are, in
general, "success stories," cases where
the goals of environmental review and
compliance brought about needed
changes in federal projects, changes that
minimized potential damage to the
environment.
While not every story has a happy
ending, EPA continues to pursue its
goals through the NEPA'Section 309
consultation and negotiation process.
That process is now shaping the
ultimate environmental impacts of a
number of significant programs and
projects that are currently before the
Agency:
The Arctic National Wildlife Hef'uge:
EPA has joined the national debate on
one of the major environmental issues
of this decade: whether the lands
within the coastal plain of the Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will
be opened to oil and gas exploration.
Concern focuses around tin; regulatory
regime appropriate for protecting the
fragile tundra environment of the
ANWR coastal plain.
EPA'S Region 10 reviewed and
commented on the Department of the
Interior's proposal to open the lands to
oil and gas exploration, anil has testified
before several congressional
subcommittees considering the late of
ANWR's coastal plain. (See article about
the Arctic's ecology on page 10.)
Homeporting: A number of EPA regions
have had to deal with issues stemming
from the Navy's "Home-porting"
program, which is intended to di.sper.se
elements of the fleet among various
coastal ports.
Particularly noteworthy was the
homeporting of the battleship U.S.S.
Missouri in San Francisco Bay. There
was protracted debate within the Bay
area over a wide range of issues related
to the Navy's proposal. One key issue
revolved around EPA Region 9's
concern that the dredging required to
prepare the Bay for the battleship would
cause environmental damage by stirring
up polluted sediments, and in the
29
-------
Several EPA regions have had to deal
with the U.S. Navy's plan to dock
elements of the fleet at various coastal
ports. Dredging and disposal continue
to be key discussion topics.
Denver's plan to build Two Forks
Reservoir received low environmental
marks from EPA's Region 8. Trout
fishermen can continue to enjoy their
"Gold Medal" trout stream while the
agencies involved try to resolve
environmental issues.
process create new disposal problems.
EPA Region 9 and the Navy worked out
a satisfactory compromise, but the
environmental impacts of the
"Homeporting" program—particularly as
these relate to dredging and
disposal—continue to be hotly debated
in other coastal regions.
Two Forks Reservoir: EPA Region 8 has
been highly active in plans for siting a
new water supply reservoir for the
Denver metropolitan area. The Two
Forks Reservoir project, proposed by the
Denver Board of Water Commissioners,
would have inundated or otherwise
damaged a significant portion of the
wetlands in the area; it would also have
eliminated a "Gold Medal" trout stream.
Based on a review of the draft E1S,
EPA Region 8 rated the project
"environmentally unsatisfactory." The
region is continuing to work with the
Denver Board of Water Commissioners,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
other agencies to resolve the
environmental issues involved.
The Future
EPA's environmental review process
lacks formal regulations and legal
penalties, but it continues to make a
valuable contribution to the Agency's
overall environmental protection goals.
The main way it does this is by
ensuring that other federal agencies are
not working at cross purposes to EPA's
goals.
The key to the success of this
non-regulatory program is EPA's
ongoing process of negotiation and
consultation with other agencies. By
working constructively with other
agencies, particularly during the early
stages of program and project planning,
EPA helps assure that their actions are
neither contrary to the Agency's goals
nor destructive of the natural
environment.
Lending weight to this approach are
not just the policy goals articulated in
NEPA, but also the specific authority
given to EPA's Administrator under
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. When
necessary, EPA has shown the will to
put the full force of the Administrator's
authority and responsibility behind
Section 309 by referring controversial
projects to CEQ. In one sense, refenal to
CEQ is EPA's closing argument in its
effort to seek resolution through the
consultation and negotiation process.
EPA remains the federal agency to
which the public ultimately looks for
protection of the nation's environmental
resources, both for this and for future
generations. The environmental review
process is a valuable and unique
mechanism for carrying out that public
trust. D
fSanderson is Director, EPA Office of
Federal Activities.]
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Federal Agency Pollution Abatement Projects
Federal agencies prepare annual
pollution abatement plans that
EPA reviews under a directive
from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB Circular A-106)
as part of the Office of Federal
Activities' federal facilities
compliance program. The chart
shows how A-106 projects have
increased both in number and
funding level during the past few
years.
In fiscal year 1985, federal
agencies proposed 343 projects
totaling approximately $261
million. By fiscal year 1988, there
were 758 proposed projects with
funding requests totaling nearly
$1.1 billion.
Much of this increase can be
attributed to the challenge of
meeting new provisions written
into the amended versions of
recently reauthorized EPA statutes.
For example, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended in 1984,
requires compliance by
smaller-scale generators of
hazardous waste. This means that
many federal facilities previously
exempt from RCRA, such as rural
post offices, remote field stations,
or laboratories, now must set aside
funds to ensure compliance with
RCRA's new regulations.
The scope and extent of
environmental management
programs at federal agencies vary
considerably. Many smaller
agencies have only a few people
dedicated to environmental
compliance, and they do virtually
all of their work out of their
Washington headquarters. Some of
the large agencies, however, may
have 40 to 50 people on the
environmental staff at a single
installation.
The Department of Defense
(DOD) is, of course, the leading
spender in this area, as in others.
DOD has established a separate
"fenced" account to clean up its
inactive hazardous waste sites. In
fiscal year 1987, this account
contained $407 million earmarked
exclusively for hazardous waste
cleanups. In addition, with the
intention of avoiding future
cleanup bills, DOD's various
programs have large budgets
devoted to curbing pollution in
their current operations.
Since July 1986, EPA has been
encouraging all regulated federal
entities, regardless of size, to
enhance the efficiency of their
environmental operations by
setting up environmental auditing
programs. Environmental auditing
serves as an internal quality
assurance check to verify
compliance, evaluate management
effectiveness, and assess risks from
facility operations and practices.
EPA is providing technical
assistance to federal agencies
interested in designing and
initiating audit programs at their
facilities. Already, almost half
have either established an auditing
program or are initiating such a
program.
EPA will be hosting a national
"Environmental Auditing
Conference for Federal Agencies"
in Atlanta from March 22 to March
24, 1988. The purpose of this
conference is to spread the word
about audit programs and help
personnel at other agencies
develop needed auditing skills.
Total Proposed Federal Agency
Pollution Abatement Projects
-1200
1985
1986
1987
1988
-1000
-800
-600
400
200
1985
1986 1987
1988
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
31
-------
. - Ai
NEPA:
Past, Present,
and Future
by Alvin L. Aim
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), signed into law on the
first day of 1970, stands in stark
contrast to other environmental
legislation enacted in the 1970s and
1980s. Beginning with the Clean Air
Act, passed in Sate 1970, environmental
legislation became increasingly
prescriptive, detailed, and complex.
NEPA, on the other hand, was short,
simple, and comprehensive. It
established a national policy to protect
the environment, created a Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), and
required that environmental impact
statements be prepared for major federal
actions having a significant effect on the
environment. This simple Act can be
compared to the current crop of
environmental laws that take up
hundreds of pages and generate
bookshelves worth of regulations. With
little statutory guidance, the newly
created CEQ set about building a staff
and staking out an agenda. CEQ's
highest priority was to become the
federal environmental policy arm. The
environmental impact statement and
annual report requirements were both
lower priority.
CEQ made major advances in the
policy area. During the early 1970s, CEQ
developed a comprehensive
environmental program which included.
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NEPA established a national policy to
protect the environment the same year
Earth Day was first celebrated.
among others, amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
forerunners to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and the Safe Drinking Water Act and
amendments to the pesticides
legislation. During its formative years,
CEQ laid the groundwork for almost all
current environmental legislation except
for Superfund and asbestos control
legislation.
CEQ also developed guidelines for the
environmental impact statement
process. At the time they were
developed, CEQ staffers had no idea
how revolutionary the environmental
impact statement process would
become.
One very early event substantially
influenced EPA's role in reviewing
other federal agency actions. It
happened when the U.S. Department of
Transportation refused to release agency
comments on the environmental impact
statement for the proposed Supersonic:
Transport. Congress took subsequent
action. It added Section 309 to the 1970
Clean Air Act, which stated that EPA
must comment on all EISs and that
EPA's comments must be made public
and would be transmitted to CEQ for
action if the environmental impacts
were "environmentally unsatisfactory."
Under this Clean Air Act mandate, EPA
set up a structured program for
reviewing and rating federal agency
projects that continues to this day.
Concurrent with the creation of NEPA
was the founding of new environmental
litigation organizations—namely the
Natural Resources Defense Counsel and
the Environmental Defense Fund. NEPA
was like grain dust to the environmental
litigators' match. These and other
environmental and citizen groups used
the NEPA tool to sue a host of federal
agencies for noncompliance with NEPA.
The courts generally came down on
their side.
The initial impacts were dramatic.
The Atomic Energy Commission's
nuclear licensing process was stopped
dead in its tracks for more than a year
as a result of the Calvert Cliffs decision.
Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling was
held up until a proper environmental
impact statement was prepared.
Controversy over the Alaska Oil
Pipeline was brought to a close only
when Congress decreed the
environmental impact statement process
was completed.
NEPA had other unexpected results.
The Courts interpreted NEPA to cover
not only direct impacts from federal
projects and activities but also indirect
effects. These indirect effects might
include increased traffic or secondary
development from projects. For
example, the initial proposal for a John
F. Kennedy library at Harvard
University was dropped when the
environmental impact statement
projected increased congestion and air
pollution.
Some have argued that the NEPA
process has also been misused at times.
For example, environmental impact
statements have been used to challenge
public housing projects. The real
concerns in these cases were only
partially environmental; in many, they
were predominantly neighborhood
issues; sometimes, they were racial
issues.
By the middle of the 1970s,
environmental concerns were routinely
being built into government actions. In
most cases, a major defeat or slow-down
of a project precipitated action.
Environmental staffs were formed,
consultants mobilized, and line staff
became more sensitive to environmental
concerns. Also, through the last part of
the 1970s and during the 1980s, the
composition of government projects and
actions changed. Lower energy prices
created less demand for a host of energy
projects, particularly electric
powerplants. The federal highway
system was essentially complete; most
of the funds were used to upgrade
existing routes.
NEPA's lack of notoriety may well be
its measure of success. By and large,
government agencies have
institutionalized environmental quality
concerns in decision-making. Few
projects proceed today that provoke an
environmentally unsatisfactory rating
from EPA, Many projects contain
environmental safeguards that would
not have resulted without the NEPA
prod.
In some cases, generic programs have
been fundamentally altered because of
NEPA concerns. For example, EPA's
sewage treatment grant strategy shifted
from one of encouraging large regional
facilities to one that encouraged smaller
units. This strategy resulted in large part
from concerns over stimulating urban
sprawl and development in sensitive
areas by financing long interceptors into
undeveloped areas.
The CEQ, created by NEPA, played a
major policy and education role, as well
as becoming the caretaker of the
environmental impact process. During
its early years. CEQ was the undisputed
policy arm of the government's
NEPA's lack of notoriety may
well be its measure of success.
environmental apparatus. Its annual
reports were authoritative and well
respected. Not only did the CEQ
develop major pollution control
legislation and policy, but it also
addressed a range of non-pollution
issues, such as the urban environment,
clearcutting, predator control, and
off-road vehicle use.
The massive growth of EPA, coupled
with large percentage staff cuts at CEQ.
has reduced the Council's policy role.
EPA now takes the lead in many areas
which during the early years would
have been CEQ's province. CEQ still
provides coordination of some lar;_;e
programs, such as the National Acid
Precipitation Action Plan, but the.se
types of responsibilities have been rarer
in recent years.
Overall, NEPA has been a quiet but
effective success after a turbulent and
dynamic beginning. CEQ continues to
play a positive, although diminished.
role. The CEQ annual reports are .still
the best overall review of environmental
issues and trends. The NEPA process
has wrought a major change in the way
government deals with environmental
issues, and this model has been
replicated in whole or in part in 23
states. All in all, NEPA has codified
an important national policy
commitment and created helpful
procedural and organizational tools to
further that policy objective, c
(Aim was Staff Director ('or Ihr
President's Council on Environmental
Quality from J970to 1973. Currently,
he is President and Chief Executive
Officer of Alliance Technology
Corporation. Prior to flu's, he iv«s
Deput3; Administrator of EPA.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
33
-------
Does NEPA Make a
Difference?
by Dinah Bear
While the NEPA process is well
known for having dramatically
expanded the involvement of private
citizens in federal agency processes, its
effect on federal decision-makers
frequently goes unnoticed by parties not
concerned about a particular proposed
action. This article will offer some
observations about NEFA's effect on
federal decision-making and will
suggest some ways to improve its
effectiveness.
How can the impact of the NEPA
process on federal (Incision-makers
accurately be evaluated? While
impossible to quantify with precision,
its cumulative effect, over the past 18
years of implementation, is enormous.
The NEPA process is applied, albeit
unevenly, to (he broadest range of
federal activities of any environmental
slatute: highways and dams, to be sure,
but also to the formulation of programs,
promulgation of regulations,
development of new weapons systems,
recommendations for Senate approval
and consent to treaties, biotechnology
experiments, forest management plans,
even the abandonment of railroad
tracks -the list extends as far as the
federal governments' reach. The
judiciary, the Council on Environmental
Quality (CKQ), and, to a lesser degree,
Congress, have provided strong
oversight and enforcement of the
procedural requirements of NEPA, thus
providing a continual reminder of the
penalties of ignoring the process. Major
projects have been modified, delayed,
or, in rare instances, cancelled because
of the information revealed through the
analysis of environmental impacts.
Not surprisingly, however, the
seriousness and intensity with which
the NEPA process is integrated into
decision-making varies enormously from
agency to agency and sometimes from
project to project. Generally speaking,
agency NEPA compliance appears to fall
into one of three stages of
"environmental evolution." In the first
stage, agency officials strongly resist
application of the NEPA process to their
agency's activities, citing conflicting
purposes between NEPA compliance
and their "real" mission. They may
develop a theory of why NEPA doesn't
apply to certain of their activities, or
they may totally ignore NEPA, viewing
an absence of litigation as proof that
their position is acceptable.
In the second stage of evolution, often
arrived at after one or more judicial
decisions affirming the agency's
obligation to comply with NEPA, agency
officials will concede the obvious and
promulgate agency procedures
consistent with CEQ regulations. Staff
will prepare numerous NEPA
documents, and the minimum public
involvement requirements will be
followed. However, the agency
decision-makers believe that the
primary value of compliance is to avoid
successful litigation. They invariably
grumble about the time and paperwork
the process often entails.
In the third stage of compliance, an
agency will aggressively reach beyond
the minimum legal requirements to use
the NEPA process as a vital part of the
decision-making process. It generally
will be creative and open towards the
involvement of all interested parties,
both in and out of the federal
government, and will seriously ponder
the alternative courses of action
evaluated in the NEPA process. Whether
an agency reaches this stage of
evolution seems to depend largely on
the personal commitment of individuals
in an agency—particularly the
decision-maker(s), high-level staff in
environmental review or compliance
offices, and the Solicitor's or Genera!
Counsel's office—as well as an
understanding of the process on the part
of the program people. Hostility or
apathy towards the process from any of
these players can be a significant
detriment; the decision-maker, of
course, can most easily set the tone of
full and spirited compliance.
This three-step evolution towards
NEPA compliance was summarized in a
statement by a decision-maker in the
U.S. Air Force. In essence, that
gentleman said, "At first, I really
resisted complying with NEPA every
step of the way. Then, after getting
beaten over the head enough times, I
started complying with it, but I
grumbled all the time. Finally, one day,
I thought—well, I might as well try
using the system. And you know what
happened? It actually worked—it
definitely improved the quality of my
decision-making."
Aside from anecdotal stories, what
evidence is there of NEPA's influence
on federal decision-making? While there
is no direct evidence comprehensively
addressing this question throughout the
government, some facts suggest certain
conclusions. Virtually all agencies
whose activities have some degree of
environmental impact have now
adopted agency procedures which are
generally consistent with the CEQ
regulations. The last agency to do so,
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, adopted such regulations
on December 9, 1987.
Requests from the agencies
themselves for statutory exemptions
from NEPA are extremely rare; requests
for deviations from the normal process,
provided for in the CEQ regulations, are
also quite rare.
Litigation based on NEPA causes of
action is declining. The lowest number
of NEPA lawsuits ever filed was
recorded during 1985: a total of 77
34
EPA JOURNAL
-------
cases, and concomitantly, the lowest
number of injunctions against the
government was issued, with a total of
eight injunctions. This compares to 189
cases filed during 1974 and a record of
21 injunctions during 1983. The decline
in litigation may reflect agencies' greater
experience and expertise in carrying out
their NEPA responsibilities.
These statistics, however, don't mean
that ail things are well with regard to
NEPA in all agencies. The author has
personal knowledge of some agencies
with a high level of commitment to
NEPA's substantive goals as well as
procedural requirements. Nevertheless. I
would say that many agencies are still
in "stage two" of their evolution in
complying with NEPA, with some
"stage-one" problems in certain program
areas. The reasons for these problems
are both internal and external to the
agencies. First, at the risk of sounding
trite or simple, I must stress the
importance of individuals' attitudes in
key positions. The best procedures in
the world will mean little if viewed as
nothing more than legal requirements.
While important in relation to
implementation of any environmental
statute, this fundamental rule may be
even more essential in the NEPA
process because of its broad application
and integrated approach to federal
programs which would otherwise
involve little interaction with people or
disciplines outside that program's
normal purview.
Second, the usefulness of the NEPA
process to decision-makers often is
weakened by a persistent tendency to
overload NEPA documents with a
voluminous amount of irrelevant or
often highly technical data. No one
wants to read such documents: not
public citizens, not members of public
interest organizations, not federal
judges, and certainly not
decision-makers. Why, then, does this
habitual overloading of EIS(s) exist? The
common excuse is, "the lawyers made
us do it" to avoid litigation risks. I am
not persuaded that this is valid reason
for weakening the value of the NEPA
process to decision-makers, either on
substantive grounds or for some kind of
litigation strategy. It remains, however,
a disincentive to using the NEPA
process to improve the decision-making
process and has, I believe, contributed
to an unfortunate and unnecessarily
cynical attitude about EIS^s) in
particular.
Third, agencies far too frequently find
themselves in the position of playing
"catch up" with their obligations under
NEPA, whether for particular projects or
entire agency programs. Agency
personnel should constantly be alert to
any programs for which integration of
the NEPA process is not a normal part
of doing business. At the same time,
agencies sometimes don't comment on
another agency's NEPA analysis at all
until the final stages of the process,
causing considerable delay and hard
feelings.
Finally, NEPA is to a certain extent a
victim of its own success in the context
of environmental taw. Because it is the
oldest of the environmental statutes
passed as a result of the environmental
movement in the 1960s and is the most
widely implemented of the
environmental statutes in the federal
government, and, perhaps, because no
reauthorization of NEPA is required, a
certain aura of benign neglect is
associated with the NEPA process.
Following the public's cue, Congress
and the private sector have increasingly
turned their attention to specific
environmental problems, notably,
clean up of hazardous waste sites,
disposal of toxic wastes, etc. This trend
can inadvertently reinforce a view that
NEPA is about production of
documents, while the "real" action is
implementation of other environmental
laws: at best, it sends a signal that
creative, vigorous NEPA compliance is
not something which is highly valued.
While not pervasive, any manifestation
of such attitudes is harmful. NEPA is
the one environmental statute which
forces all federal agencies to look at all
of the environmental consequences of
their actions; it is the one statute that
requires the federal decision-maker to
seriously consider alternatives to a
proposed action, and, in the context of
the EIS process, to explain the rationale
for the final decision.
In November 1987, CEQ held a
national conference, co-sponsored with
the Environmental Law Section of the
New York State Bar, on the preparation
and review of environmental impact
statements at both the federal and state
levels. The conference was well
attended by federal and state officials
and members of the private sector who
are significantly involved in the NEPA
process or its equivalent at the state
level. Persons from all parts of the
country, ranging from Hawaii to Puerto
Rico, discussed with insight and
enthusiasm the strengths and
weaknesses of the environmental
assessment processes. One of the panels
focused specifically on the relationship
between the process and agency
decision-making. Among the ideas
which CEQ intends to pursue as a result
of the discussions at the conference are
the following:
• Recognition of superior NEPA
compliance. During the conference, the
observation was made that there is
never positive reenforcement for
excellent compliance with NEPA but
only negative results for inadequate
compliance. While good implementation
which leads to better decision-making
should be of great internal satisfaction,
CEQ will explore ways to visibly
recognize innovative and vigorous
NEPA compliance in the federal
agencies.
• Tackling the "EIS horror story"
syndrome. CEQ has long been
concerned with the problem of lengthy.
unreadable NEPA documents. The CEQ
regulations were specifically written to
emphasize ways to make the NEPA
process more useful to decision-makers
and the public, to reduce paperwork
and the accumulation of extraneous
background data, and to emphasize real
environmental issues and alternatives.
Unfortunately, both the spirit and
specific requirements of the regulations
which address this problem are
frequently disregarded in favor of the
"more is better" syndrome. During the
coming year, the CEQ General Counsel's
office will focus on compliance with
these aspects of the regulations which
were drafted to improve integration of
the NEPA process with decision-making
and to eliminate documentation which
is of no use to anyone.
• Engaging in alternate dispute
resolution. Because the motivation
behind the less productive aspects of
the NEPA process is the fear of
litigation, we will also explore the
desirability of engaging in alternative
dispute resolution in situations which
seem likely to result in traditional
litigation.
We will continue to seek out ideas to
improve the relevance of the NEPA
process to decision-making at all times
and welcome suggestions from any
interested persons, o
(Bear is General Counsel of the
President's Council on Environmental
Quality.]
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
35
-------
Thoughts
about
Improving
Environmental
Care
by Malcolm Baldwin
There was little opposition when
Congress passed and President Nixon
subsequently signed into law the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NKPA). NEPA was enacted on the wave
of strong public; support from citizen
groups frustrated by the federal
government's repeated failure to provide
environmental safeguards when
approving the construction of dams,
highways, airports, and other major
public or private projects.
NEPA's birth, in effect, was the
culmination of a 10-year period during
which an emerging environmental
constituency fought a rearguard action
against several large federal projects
including a jetport in the middle of the
Florida Everglades and a large dam on
the Colorado River that flooded parts of
the Grand Canyon. Major highway
projects in densely populated areas
were also approved even though they
destroyed many an old city
neighborhood and other parts of the
urban environment. Scores of large
private projects ivere approved and
developed without environmental
safeguards or oversight.
What gave birth to NEPA was the
growing recognition that the federal
government was itself contributing to
the nation's environmental problems.
This produced a consensus that the
entire executive establishment from the
President to the various federal agencies
should be accountable for decisions that
affect the environment, and that citizens
had the right to participate and to
influence the development of such
decisions.
NEPA included two specific
provisions for achieving these dual
objectives. The first was to create a
Council on Environmental Quality
(CKQ) modeled after the already existing
Council of Economic Advisors. CEQ was
set up to give high-level advice on
environmental matters to the President
and to make certain that all federal
agencies were complying with NEPA
provisions. The second landmark
provision from NEPA was the
environmental impact statement (EIS).
This required that all federal agencies
prepare an environmental statement
analyzing the impacts of proposed
actions and alternatives before taking
any major action that would
significantly affect the human
environment.
Eighteen years later, we take these
and many other NEPA provisions
almost for granted. In the early 1970s,
however, the new CKQ often had to
prod a somewhat reluctant
administration to enact and incorporate
programs and initiatives that derived
from NEPA mandates.
CEQ helped to establish EPA in 1970,
and it subsequently developed three
comprehensive environmental programs
during the Nixon administration. Again
in the late 1970s, CEQ drafted two more
environmental programs for President
Carter which included many programs
and Executive Orders (on wetlands and
floodplains for example) that remain in
effect to this day.
CEQ also established and helped
evolve the basic structure for EISs,
supported by court decisions that often
moved the process forward in the face
of political pressure or bureaucratic
inertia. In the early 1970s, for example,
the Department of the Interior tried to
justify the 800-mile Trans-Alaska
Pipeline with a paltry four-page impact
statement. The entire environmental
impact statement process seemed to
hang in the balance. It appeared to some
that NEPA's EIS requirements were on
the road to bureaucratic obscurity. In
this case, however, a successful suit
against the Department of the Interior
made the Agency go back to the
drawing boards. This was followed by
subsequent court decisions that further
strengthened the EIS process. After a
painful period of agency adjustment and
energetic troubleshooting by CEQ, EISs
that were once the deus ex machine of
administrative processes have become
routine parts of much more open and
informed agency decision-making
throughout the federal government.
Other countries have adopted
environmental impact statement
practices based largely on the logic of
the American EIS process and U.S.
experience in using it. The European
Common Market Countries, as well as
the 17-nation Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD),
have endorsed the concept of
environmental impact assessment (E1A).
thanks largely to leadership on this
issue from the Dutch government. EIAs
are also now required in many countries
of the developing world including Sri
Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand, which
alone prepares over 300 EIAs annually.
The U.S. Agency for International
Development, often with EPA's help,
assists these countries. The U.S.
experience \vith impact statements
continues to be seen as an encouraging
example of how the process can work
successfully. American help is readily
sought by many in the international
community.
It would please me to end my article
here with an upbeat conclusion that
predicted bigger and better things from
NEPA in the future, but that would be a
disservice to my readers and the NEPA
process. Much of NEPA's potential has
not been achieved and many of its
promises have not been realized. On the
positive side, the Reagan
administration's CEQ has continued to
support the EIS process as it developed
and evolved through previous
administrations in the 1970s.
Environmental factors are almost
routinely incorporated into the
bureaucratic process, and we don't get
many projects approved that are
blatantly destructive to the
environment.
Balanced against this are several
problems and shortcomings. One is that
\ve simply don't know how well NEPA
is working within each agency, and we
have not yet seized the initiative to
improve the efficiency of the EIS
process or to integrate environmental
and economic priorities and decisions
of most federal agencies. The federal
government is in a holding pattern that
creates few waves or complaints but
that often results in unknown or
unrecognized benefits. We could do
worse, but we could also do much
better.
We need a comprehensive review to
identify the benefits and problems of
the EIS requirement, how agencies
actually use it, how citizens view it, and
how it can be used more effectively.
When complaints arise about costs for
the program, we lack the evidence to
know whether they are valid or off the
mark. One example involved a proposal
to CEQ by the Army Corps of Engineers
to make major changes in what it
claimed were costly and redundant
NEPA procedures concerning its
approval of private projects. The CEQ
approved this request over EPA's
36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
objection, even though it lacked even
the most basic information on the actual
scope or costs of the problem, or the
effects of the proposed change. It has
been over 10 years since CEQ undertook
its comprehensive, agency-by-agency
fact-finding review of NEPA, which led
in 1978 to revised EIS regulations. It's
time for another such fact finding
review.
My eclectic observations over the past
seven years suggest that the EIS process
is too often neglected at the decision-
making level, is often weak on analysis
of reasonable alternatives, and tends to
be too narrow in scope. I believe certain
things need to be done to rectify these
problems and improve the process.
One is carefully to integrate EiSs into
local or regional planning processes
such as Special Area Management plans
that affect and are affected by federal
decisions. Careful integration of various
local, state, and federal environmental
responsibilities could produce more
practical environmental assessments
and fewer, but much better, EISs. This
would also promote sounder public and
private environmental and development
decisions in environmentally important
and sensitive areas such as estuaries,
large wetlands, and endangered species
habitat. Such integration would provide
substantial environmental and economic
benefits to the nation.
Another area of reform is needed to
rectify the problem of overly long and
very expensive EISs on private projects.
There may be better ways to use and to
circulate informal environmental
assessments that can often be more
practical than EISs because they are
more flexible and responsive to rapid
changes in information, design, or
environmental concerns. We need to
identify ways to reduce EIS costs and
inherent delays in the existing process.
We also need to manage EIS consulting
work more carefully and ensure that
private applicants seeking federal
approval pay the full costs of
environmental assessments.
There are also practical bureaucratic
problems to attend to. Like the agency
staff in other countries 1 have visited,
federal agency staff who prepare and
review EISs are highly susceptible to
burnout because they too often get little
reward for, or feedback from, their
work. Rotational assignments from EIS
offices in regions or headquarters to the
action offices in the field and visa versa
could help morale and performance.
Finally, we need to recognize that
although NEPA was established in part
to provide a high-level advisor to the
President on environmental matters, the
scope of that function essentially
derives from the priorities of each
administration. The only way ultimately
to bridge such priority differences is
simultaneously to advance and
harmonize priorities related to sound
economic: growth and environmental
conservation. It has always been
difficult to reconcile economic growth
and environmental conservation. The
integration of long-range environmental
analyses into budget decision-making
was an early goal of NEPA. but its
successful implementation has always
eluded the Office of the President. It's
clear, however, that we could save
money and possibly the environment if
we could find ways to do so. We must
find ways to strengthen the
environmental review and advice
process within the Office of the
President and integrate it adequately
with the work and advice of the Office
of Management and Budget and the
Council of Economic Advisors. If it
turns out that the CEQ can no longer
perform this function, then some other
entity must take up the slack. The EIS
process itself might be vastly improved
by requiring economic analyses of
proposed actions and alternatives,
including the feasibility of using market
mechanisms in place of government
subsidies. The United States as well as
the entire world would benefit from
energetic efforts to strengthen the
economic and environmental policy
connection, c
( Baldwin is a former stud' member
and Acting Chairman of the
President's Council on Environmental
Quality. He is nou- an environmental
consultant.)
The Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. The NEPA process is applied to actions
and activities of federal agencies, including the funding of highways and dams.
Litigation based on NEPA is declining, perhaps because other agencies now
have greater experience in complying with their responsibilities under this law.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
37
-------
Herbicides, the Forest
and NEPA
by Gary L. Larsen
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) is a catalyst for sound
environmental policymaking. It also
provides a framework for managing
conflicts over environmental matters
that invariably arise as government
agencies carry out their missions and
responsibilities.
One recent example of these dual
benefits involves the way the Pacific
Northwest Region of the USDA Forest
Service is using NEPA to make
decisions about controversial issues
surrounding the management of
competing and unwanted vegetation in
the National Forests of Oregon and
Washington. This management
sometimes includes two controversial
methods: the use of herbicides and
prescribed burning. Both methods
generate strong opposition from some
environmental groups as well as
concerns from some state and local
authorities.
There has been, in fact, a full decade
of intense controversy associated with
herbicide use by the Forest Service in
Oregon and Washington. This
controversy culminated in a landmark
1984 judicial ruling that any
government body (including the Forest
Service} which uses pesticides must
fully consider potential human health
problems associated with its programs.
This requirement goes well beyond the
consideration given to human health as
part of EPA's pesticide registration
requirements. The court decision also
directed government agencies to involve
the public in assessing and weighing
potential human health effects as part of
the NEPA process.
This judicial decision helped set the
stage for the Pacific Northwest Region of
the Forest Service to take a new
approach in resolving the long-standing
controversies regarding its use of
herbicides and newer concerns with the
use of prescribed fire. The new
•
Having the public involved in planning and analysis from the very beginning
has resulted in open and productive communication among all key
constituencies affected by, or concerned about, vegetation management in the
western forests under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.
approach involved developing an
entirely new program of managing
competing and unwanted vegetation and
included a deep commitment to
involvement of interested citizens,
organizations, and agencies in the whole
process, from the very beginning.
The scope of the conflict was not just
between the Forest Service and groups
opposed to the use of herbicides; it was
much larger. It included a broad range
of issues such as community stability,
maintenance of ecosystems, and the
efficacy of techniques, as well as human
health. The interested parties were
many and varied. They included county
weed control boards, state agencies
(such as departments of transportation,
agriculture, and public health), and
industry groups. The timber, chemical,
and agricultural interests in particular
were concerned that our analysis and
decisions would lead to unnecessary
restrictions on their own use of
herbicides.
The common thread among
conflicting views was that all wanted
the forests to be managed carefully and
to good purpose. The differences were
primarily in the assessments of "How
careful is careful enough" and what
constitutes "good purpose,"
NEPA provides a framework and
process that allows dialogue among
38
EPA JOURNAL
-------
interested persons about those
differences and provides an agency the
nuuins for using that dialogue to
improve the quality of its decisions. The
NEPA process was used effectively by
the Forest Service to establish and
strengthen working relations among
interested persons, and to enlist the
help of interested citizens in developing
a new program of vegetation
management.
The process is working because all
participants including the Forest Service
have a commitment to listening and
being willing to be educated by the
views of others. The framework of
NEPA provided the Forest Service with
five distinct but closely related steps to
guide public involvement efforts.
The first step was to identify all key
constituencies affected by or concerned
about the various aspects of vegetation
management (including the use of
herbicides and prescribed fire), and to
involve them at the earliest stages of
planning a new program of vegetation
management.
The Forest Service used mailings
requesting public participation and
discussion as well as workshops to
identify broad issues. Subsequent
detailed working group sessions with
business and the environmental and
forestry community were also used to
develop alternatives and identify
analytical needs. Other affected and
interested groups were identified and
contacted by employees working in the
field. Many agencies (both state and
federal) became formal cooperators in
planning and analysis.
The second step was to determine the
interests and concerns of each of these
constituencies relevant to vegetation
management. Concerns were identified
particularly with human health,
economics, and the efficacy of
herbicides and prescribed burning.
Two positive results came from this
step. One was that the Forest Service
came to recognize that it really hadn't
been listening as carefully as it should.
The second was the discovery that
many groups and individuals had well
thought-out and articulate contributions
to make to improving vegetation
management in the Pacific Northwest
Region. It was interesting to note that
many of these groups had very little
knowledge of the basic Forest Service
mission, how the agency makes
decisions, and the benefits of managed
forests.
The next step in the process was to
decide which issues could be handled.
Activities for which decisions were
needed included some aspects of
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
As a result of the NEPA process, the U.S. Forest Service learned that prescribed
burning and its effects were as great a concern to some people as the use of
herbicides.
reforestation, roadside vegetation
management, range management, and
control of noxious weeds. The public
and other agencies identified the issues
that needed to be considered for each
activity. The issues included health
effects, as well as a broad range of
economic, social, and environmental
effects.
Step four was to decide how to deal
with the issues effectively, in a manner
promoting collaboration among the
participants. This step assisted the
Forest Service in being responsive to
public interests and concerns as it
developed a vegetation management
program.
Seven alternatives were developed
and fully analyzed for both their
benefits and drawbacks. The results of
that detailed examination are contained
in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) issued for public
comment in October 1987. The public
comment period extended to
mid-February 1988. The alternatives
ranged from doing nothing (not
managing competing and unwanted
vegetation) to an aggressive program
that would use all tools of vegetation
management, including herbicides and
prescribed burning.
The fifth and last step in this process
will be for the Regional Forester to
carefully consider public and other
agency comments and make a final
decision about the alternative or
combination of alternatives that best
responds to the issues and the Forest
Service mission. While this decision has
not yet been made, support for the
decision and associated programs is
expected to be much higher than in the
past because interested parties were
involved in the planning and analysis
from the very beginning.
Admittedly, no process can
completely resolve all controversies
about the safety, efficacy, and costs of
using herbicides. And difficult
questions remain about prescribed
burning and other tools of vegetation
management.
In the end, the Regional Forester of
the Pacific Northwest Region will have
to find the best possible balance among
a range of considerations and conflict ing
points of view. Nothing can eliminate
the controversies entirely, but they are
being inevitably modified and tiniiporod
through the dialogue provided by the
NEPA framework.
Many groups will be satisfied that
their concerns were at least understood
and considered in the final decision. In
an imperfect world where conflicts arise
over many important issues, NEPA
requirements and the process they
identify for public involvement provide
an excellent means for managing
conflicts in a constructive and
reasonable manner. Q
(Larsen is (he Group Leader, Vegetal/on
Management, the Pacific NorthivesJ
Region of the U.S. Forest Service.)
39
-------
Plastics:
Concerns about a
Modern Miracle
by Matthew Coco
Plastic bags look like jellyfish in the
water. Unfortunately, they are not
digestible. This loggerhead sea turtle, a
threatened species, apparently died
from ingesting plastic wrap near
Galveston, Texas.
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Remember the "one word of advice"
Mr. Robinson gave young Benjamin
Braddock in The Graduate? It ivas
"plastics." Well, Benjamin ignored the
advice and instead was seduced by Mrs.
Robinson. America, on the other hand,
was seduced by plastics.
The ever-increasing manufacture of
lightweight, convenient, durable, and
inexpensive plastic products is adding
to the nation's solid waste disposal
problem. Of the estimated 150 million
tons of commercial and residential trash
produced in America each year. 10.5
million tons (about seven percent)
is plastic. Since plastic tends to be
lightweight but voluminous, it is taking
more and more space in America's
dwindling landfill areas. And because
landfill space is increasingly hard to
find, solid waste disposal fees rose 12.6
percent nationally in 1986 alone.
Plastics are petrochemical products of
crude oil or natural gas, first produced
in the mid-19th century. Their
development was hastened by the metal
shortages of World War II, and was
fostered by the relatively low cost of oil
and gas. The only recent downturns in
plastic production corresponded with
oil price increases related to OPI^C.
The amount of plastics production
devoted to packaging rose from
approximately 7.9 billion pounds in
1977 to 12.8 billion pounds in 1985.
Since packaging is by its very nature
disposable, the effects of increased use
of plastic packaging on the solid waste
stream will continue to grow.
Grocery stores are a good example of
the mushrooming role of disposable
plastics. Plastic bags offer many
advantages over paper bags. They have
handles for easier carrying, do not fall
apart when wet, require less storage
space in the warehouse or at the:
checkstand, and are cheaper to purchase
and ship in bulk.
Fish and other marine life are
endangered by plastic packaging.
Much of this plastic packaging winds
up in remaining landfill space, in
vacant Jots, or along roadsides. Some is
dumped in the ocean and on beaches.
where it poses both an unsightly
aesthetic problem and a deadly danger
to marine life. Plastics reach the marine
environment from merchant ships,
commercial fishing and recreational
boats, off-shore oil rigs, beach use,
combined sewer overflows, stormwater
runoff, landfills and transfer stations,
sewage treatment plants, manufacturing
facilities, and open dumping. According
to the Center for Environmental
Education's Plastics in the Ocean study,
partially funded by EPA, world-wide
merchant shipping is believed to dump
639,000 plastic containers into the
ocean daily. The Center estimates that
30.000 fur seals die each year after
being entangled in plastic fish nets and
packaging debris. And plastic pellets
resembling eggs or plastic: bags that look
like jellyfish are mistaken for food by
marine creatures. Seabirds that ingest
plastics often die of suffocation or fatal
digestive blockages.
New Jersey beaches were closed last
summer because of solid waste, some of
it plastic, washing ashore. Oregon state
fish and wildlife agencies report that a
1984 cleanup of 150 miles of Oregon
beachfront yielded 48,898 chunks of
styrofoam bigger than baseballs. 1,442
six-pack rings, 4,787 plastic; jugs and
bottles, 4,909 plastic bags or sheets, and
5,339 plastic food utensils. A similar
cleanup along a 122-mile strip of Texas
coastline produced 125 tons of trash,
more than half of it plastic.
As with many environmental
problems, preventing and reducing
"plastic pollution" will require a
combination of behavioral changes,
voluntary reduction campaigns,
technological advances, and
governmental intervention. There are
many factors that will mako it difficult
to deal with the plastic problem. Hero
are some of the possibilities. . . and
some of their pitfalls.
Behavior Modification. Many lifestyle
changes can heighten environmental
awareness by substituting alternative
products for minimally convenient
products. Replaceable blades can be
used in place of disposable plastic
razors. At the grocery store, plastic
produce sacks can be reused again and
again; better yet, paper or reusable
fabric; or net .shopping bags can be used
as they are in many European countries.
We can request takeout food to be
wrapped in waxed paper instead of
plastic.
Non-generation. It is easier to
eliminate pollutants before they enter
the biosphere than to clean them up
later. The point is that choices of
products and processes must be made
early if pollutants are to be best
controlled. In this spirit, the Institute of
Scrap Iron and Steel advocates
designing recycling into the production
process.
Non-production of plastic waste
would eliminate the problem, but
certain advantages of plastics are
inescapable and difficult to ignore.
Shatterproof plastic shampoo bottles
contribute to home safely. Plastic soft
drink bottles reduce shipping costs and
thus reduce consumer prices. Although
publii ediii ation might help identify
uses that could be changed or
eliminated, the generally non-toxic
properties of manufactured plastics
make it unlikely that sufficient public
concern can be mustered to support
prohibition or restrictions on plastic
product use.
Anti-littering Campaigns. Most states
have laws against discarding trash in
public areas or outside of prescribed
areas. Many rural communities have
designated trash pickup points.
Washington State requires motorists to
have trash bags in their cars and
provides the bags. Oregon provides
special litter bags for boaters. Ironically.
the bags are plastic.
Recycling and Resource Recovery.
Oregon recently enacted an
"Opportunity to Recycle" law which
requires municipalities over 4,500 in
population to provide a curbside
recycling program where feasible. New
Jersey requires recycling: the goal is 25
percent recycling. Sanctions against
plastic: packaging are being considered if
the recycling rate i,s low.
Resource recovery is possible; with
plastics, but more complicated than
with otJior forms of solid wash;. I!
requires trash separation, and. unlike
bottle and can recycling, it may be hard
to determine what is plastic and what is
not since plastic comes in so many
forms. Plastic's light weight may also
deter private rocyclors since it may he
hard to accumulate enough plastic (>v
weight to make recycling economically
attractive.
And not all plastics are recyclable.
Remelting of thermoplastics, which
include polyethylene, polystyrene, and
nylon, requires little energy, lint their
chemical composition varies enough so
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
>i
-------
each must be segregated. \vith all
contaminants removed, before molting.
The more, durable thermoset plastics
cannot be melted for reuse, but they do
break down into mixed organic gases
and liquids which might be used lor
chemical feedstocks or fuel.
In any event, recycling won't
completely solve the plastics disposal
problem. Dwindling landfill space
prompted Seattle's mayor to propose an
ambitious recycling program to
complement solid waste incineration.
The plan's goal is to recycle 40 percent
of the waste by 2010. although the goal
for plastics is only 22 percent. While
this is an improvement over the current
seven-percent level, it still consigns a
lot of plastic to the environment or to
incineration.
The future of recycling also raises the
question whether government will
intrude into the home with mandatory
programs if the voluntary plans fail to
capture a significant share of the waste
stream. Although some local recycling
programs go beyond newspapers and
aluminum cans, there is a question as to
how willing and successful the public;
will be in coping with the need to
segregate glass, different metals, paper.
plastics, et al., in household trash.
Incineration. This has the advantage
of dramatically reducing the sheer
volume of solid waste, including
plastics, Carbage separation allows for
reclamation of some of plastic's resource
value, especially as an energy resource':
plastic contains 1 ,f>00 BTU per pound as
compared to 75!) BTU per pound for
regular garbage. But incineration, even if
tied to energy reclamation, yields some
undesirable byproducts. Residual ash
must still be landfilled. and it may
include heavy metaLs and other toxic:
elements which must be kept out of soil
and water. Moreover, there is a growing
public concern about the possibility of
incineration creating airborne dioxiti
and furans that could pose a threat to
the public: health.
This public perception has led to a
number of controversies and lawsuits
against proposed and functioning
incineration projects. King County, WA,
for example, has published a
preliminary list of possible incinerator
sites, and although a final choice is a
year or more in the future, the City of
Kent has already sued the county over
the siting. Because incinerator siting
issues are primarily dealt with as state
and local matters, such controversies
and legal actions, based more on
• •.
This herring gull at Mustang Beach,
Texas, may never be able to remove
this six-pack plastic ring from its neck.
perceptions of dangers than on actual
scientific evidence of danger, may slow
clown the move to incineration as a
solution to the solid waste (and plastic:
waste) disposal problem.
Shifting to Degraclable Plastics. The
degradability of traditional plastics is
limited in the presence of sunlight and
its ultraviolet rays. Some attempts are
being made to chemically alter plastics
to hasten photo-degradation by sunlight.
If they work, current landfill technology
involving waste burial—in effect, hiding
it from the ultraviolet rays—would have
to be abandoned unless an extensive
waste separation effort saved the:
plastics for separate treatment. Unless
this were done by the individual
homeowner, separating out the
plastics after the trash is collected would
require a higher capital investment or
increased staff, at a higher cost to the
ratepayers. It would also require more
space, which becomes more and more of
a problem as landfills are closed and
opposition to new sites spreads.
Photo-degradation is also affected by the
weather, which places northern
latitudes at a disadvantage.
Another possibility is the use of
microbes to break down certain plastics.
Although this might require substantial
investment by local ratepayers,
biodegradable plastics may be better
suited to landfill disposal.
Another handicap for degradability as
a means of dealing with plastic waste is
that it inhibits recycling. Plastics
designed to break down will not be
durable enough for reuse; their presence
in this mix could lessen the quality of
recycled products, and it would be
difficult to separate them from other
plastics in the waste stream.
In spite of all the problems, there are
encouraging developments. On
November 5. 1987, the U.S. Senate
ratified Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, which regulates
the disposal of garbage, including
plastics and floatables, from ships at
sea. During 1987, Congress also passed
the "Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act," which bans the dumping
of plastics by any vessel within 200
miles of the U.S. Coast. Among other
things, the Act also authorizes research
by EPA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric, Administration on
issues concerning the land-based
sources of plastics pollution, the effects
of plastics on marine life, and the use of
biodegradable plastics.
Another possible remedy is
adaptation of a law passed in Oregon,
where the legislature imposed a $1
surcharge on new tires sold in the state,
with the funds generated to be used for
cleaning up tire piles and subsidizing
tire recycling. If this could be adapted
to sale of plastics, with the vast number
of products and packages involved, a
way to pay partial disposal costs might
be available. Perhaps a surcharge on
plastics manufacturers could be applied
to cleanup measures and to research
into alternatives to plastics use and
degradable plastics.
McDonald's recently decided to stop
using foam plastic: cups, plates, and
cartons. The city of Berkeley, CA, has
banned use of such items by fast-food
merchants. These are steps in the right
direction. While these actions will not
eliminate plastics, they show that a
major corporation and a local legislative
body can take aggressive action in the;
face of environmental danger. What's
more, the Berkeley ordinance was
accompanied by a recommendation that
fast-food merchants reduce their use of
non-biodegradable packaging by 50
percent.
Our nation is finding waste disposal
of all kinds more and more of a
pocketbook issue. Dwindling landfill
space and the costs of treatment,
storage, and disposal mean that utility
bills will be a monthly reminder that
waste, including plastics, costs money.
This fundamental market mechanism
may be the ultimate answer to plastics
pollution. As people pay the price,
whether in higher fees or time spent
separating trash, questionable plastics
uses may be abandoned and only the
more beneficial products will remain, n
(Coco is ci writer working in EPA
Region 10.)
42
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Appointments
EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas has named Daniel
W. McGovorn to hi: the new
Regional Administrator for
EPA Region 9, headquartered
in San Francisco.
McGovern served from
1986 until this appointment,
as General Counsel of the
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
in the U.S. Commerce
Department. From 1981-1985
he was Deputy and Principal
Deputy Legal Advisor and
Acting Legal Advisor to the
U.S. State Department. He
served from 1973-1981 as a
senior research attorney to
the California Supreme Court
and from 1971-1973 as a
California Deputy Attorney
General.
McGovern holds a law
degree from the UCLA
School of Law.
Administrator for the Office
of Air and Radiation from
August 1983, after serving for
a year as the Director of the
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
Prior to his 1982 return to
EPA, Meyers directed the
National Nuclear Waste
Management Program at the
Department of Energy for
four years after working for a
year at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Meyers has also served as
Director of EPA's Office
of Federal Activities and as
Director of the Office of Solid
Waste.
Meyers received a
Bachelor's Degree in Marine
Engineering from the State
University of New York, his
M.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from tin?
University of Michigan, and
his MBA from New York
University. Meyers was
named a Princeton Fellow in
Public Affairs in 1964-19H5
and received the Presidential
Rank Award of Meritorious
Executive in 1981, and in
1986 received EPA's Gold
Medal for Exceptional
Service.
Sheldon Meyers has been
appointed Acting Associate
Administrator for
International Activities,
moving from his previous
post of Director of the Office
of Radiation Programs (ORP).
Prior to that, Meyers served
as Deputy Assistant
Craig W. DeRemer has been
appointed to be Executive
Assistant to EPA
Administrator Lee M.
Thomas.
In this capacity he will
serve as Chief of Staff and
principal advisor to the
Administrator. Prior to being
selected for this position,
DeRemer served for three
years as Director, Office of
Congressional Liaison, here at
the agency. He has also
served with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers as a
legislative specialist for three
years and as a water
resources planner for seven
years. DeRemer also worked
as a congressional staff
member at the U.S. House of
Representatives for four years.
DeRemer graduated magna
cum laude from State
University of New York at
Buffalo and went on to get
his Masters of Science from
Colorado State University.
Patrick Quinn has been
appointed Director of the
Office of Congressional
Liaison at EPA.
Quinn. who has been with
the Agency since 198(5.
brings a broad range of
government experience with
him. He has served as
Assistant to the Deputy
Administrator at EPA: prior
to that he served as Assistant
to the Deputy Secretary at the
U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Quinn has also
worked in private industry as
Executive Vice President
with the National Council of
Agricultural Employers and
also as a Legislative Liaison
with Seyfarth, Shaw.
Fairweather & Geraldson.
Quinn worked with the U.S.
Senate as a Legislative
Assistant for Senator John
Chafee (R-Rhode Island).
Quinn received his
Bachelor's Degree; in history
from the University of
Virginia after attending St.
Mark's School in
Massachusetts.
Richard J. Guimund has been
named Director of the Office
of Radiation Programs (ORP).
From December 19815 until
the time of his new
assignment. Guimond served
as Director of the ORP Radon
Division, which is the focal
point for the Agency's Radon
Action Program. Prior to that
assignment, he was Director
of the ORP Criteria and
Standards Division, a post he
assumed in November 1982.
Guimond served the
previous four years in several
managerial positions in the
EPA Office of Toxic
Substances (OTS). There he
was responsible for
developing regulations
dealing with asbestos, PCIis.
CFCs, and other toxics.
Before joining OTS. during
his first tour of duty with
ORP, lie worked in several
responsible positions.
Cuiniond received a
Bachelor's Degree in
Mechanical Engineering from
the University of Noire Dame
in 1901! and a Master's
Degree in Nuclear
Engineering from Rensseiaer
Polytechnic Institute in ti)7i).
In 1973, he was awarded a
Master of Science degree in
Environmental Health at
Harvard University, LJ
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1988
-------
Presidential Awards
Rebecca W. tlanmer
Lvery year, a number of
career Senior Executive
Service (SES) employees are
selected to receive the
Presidential Rank Award for
extended exceptional service
with the federal government.
There are two categories for
the award: Distinguished
Executive Rank and
Meritorious Executive Rank.
The Agency is proud to
announce that among the
1987 recipients of the
Distinguished Executive Rank
award are three EPA
employees: Michael B. Cook,
Director, Office of Drinking
Water, Rebecca W. Hanmer,
Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water, and
Alexandra B. Smith, Deputy
Regional Administrator.
Region 8. In conjunction with
the award, they receive
$20,000 each. Also, 10 EPA
employees received
Meritorious Executive Rank
Awards which include
$10,000.
Cook has been with the
Agency nearly 15 years and
has served many important
functions. Cook was
responsible for the planning
of municipal treatment works
and for legislative policy in
EPA's multi-billion dollar
construction grants program.
He has since managed the
Agency's emergency response
programs and served as
Deputy Director of the Office
of Solid Waste. He is
currently Director of the
Office of Drinking Water. No
stranger to receiving awards,
Cook has received EPA's
gold, silver, and bronze
medals.
Michael B. Cook
Hanmer has been with the
federal government more
than 20 years. Since joining
EPA in 1972, she has worked
with great success in many
divisions. She began her
career at EPA as an Assistant
Director, Office of Federal
Activities: she then went on
to become director of that
office. She left EPA
headquarters to serve as
Deputy Regional
Administrator in Region 1
and then went on to Region
4, where she served as
Regional Administrator.
When she returned to
headquarters, she became a
Special Assistant. Since then,
Hanmer has been in the
Office of Water as Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Water and, currently, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Water. Hanmer has received
several awards, including the
Administrator's Special
Achievement Award, the
Presidential Meritorious
Executive award, and EPA's
gold and silver medals.
Smith began her
government career in 1972 at
the Department of Housing
and Urban Development as a
Development Specialist. She
joined EPA in 1976 as
Director of EPA's Office of
Federal Affairs in Seattle and
served in that position for
two years. She then became
Chief of the Environmental
Evaluation Branch. Smith
currently serves as Deputy
Regional Administrator of
Region 8 in Denver. The
Region includes six states:
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming.
Alexandra B. Smith
The winners of the
Meritorious Award are:
Herbert Barrack, Assistant
Regional Administrator for
Policy and Management,
Region 2; Don R. Clay,
Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Air and
Radiation, Office of Air and
Radiation; Frank M.
Covington, Deputy Regional
Administrator, Region 5;
Willis E. Greenstreet,
Director, Office of
Administration and
Resources Management,
Research Triangle Park Office
of Administration and
Resources Management;
Norbert A. Jaworski,
Director, Environmental
Research Lab—Narragansett,
Office of Research and
Development; James R.
Moore, Regional
Counsel—Region 10 Office of
General Counsel; Thomas A.
Murphy, Director,
Environmental Research
Lab—Corvallis, Office of
Research and Development;
Courtney Riordan, Director.
Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects
Research, Office of Research
and Development; John H.
Skinner. Director, Office of
Environmental Engineering
and Technology, Office of
Research and Development;
and Stephen R. Wassersug,
Director, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, Region
3. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Lightning cracks across the sky in a
thunderstorm in the Midwest.
Back Cover: Mangroves dominate the
shore of much of the world's tropical
ocean. They are critical to the coastal
environment and provide a feeding and
breeding ground for a large number of
aquatic species. The dense, almost
impenetrable root systems shelter the
land from storms and are part of
nature's land-building process. It is
through the mangroves that the water
of the Everglades passes as it leaves the
sawgrass and enters the Gulf of Mexico.
These black mangroves are found on
Lignumvitae Key, a unique botanical
preserve immediately adjacent to
Everglades National Park in south
Florida. Photo ;p) by Peter R. Jutro.
-------
------- |