Environmental Encyclopedia

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Audubon Society

tion sued the EPA for failure to review the ozone NAAQS

in light of new evidence.

Particulate matter is composed of small pieces of solid

and liquid matter, including soot, dust, and organic matter.

It reduces

visibility

and can cause eye and throat irritation,

respiratory ailments, and

cancer

. Through 1987, total sus-

pended particulates were the basis of the NAAQS. In 1987,

the standard was revised and based on particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less

(PM-10), which was identified as the main health risk.

Sulfur dioxide is a gas produced primarily by coal-

burning utilities and other fossil fuel combustion. It is the

chief cause of

acid

rain and can also cause respiratory

problems.

To achieve the NAAQSs for these six pollutants, the

Clean Air Act incorporated three strategies. First, the federal

government would establish New Source Performance Stan-

dards (NSPSs) for stationary sources such as factories and

power plants

; they would also establish

emission stan-

dards

for mobile sources. Finally, the states would develop

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address existing

sources of air pollution. If the federal government deter-

mined that an SIP was not adequate to assure that the state

would meet the NAAQSs, it could impose federal controls

to meet them. According to the EPA, the SIPs must be

designed to bring sub-standard air quality regions up to the

NAAQSs, or to make sure any area already meeting the

requirements continued to do so. The SIPs should prevent

increased air pollution in areas of noncompliance, either by

preventing significant expansions of existing industries or

the opening of new plants. In order to allow economic devel-

opment and growth in such non-attainment areas while still

working to reduce air pollution, the 1977 amendments to

the Clean Air Act required that new sources of pollution in

non-attainment areas must control emissions to the

lowest

achievable emission rate

(LAER) for that type of source

and pollution and demonstrate that the new pollution would

be offset by new

emission

reductions from existing sources

in the area, reductions that went beyond existing permits

and compliance plans. So, new sources were allowed, but

only if the additional pollution were offset by reductions at

existing sources.

Between 1978 and 1987, data collected nationally at

84 to 1,726 sites (varying for each pollutant) indicate that

annual average concentrations of total suspended particulates

fell by 21%, sulfur dioxide levels fell by 35%, carbon monox-

ide levels fell by 32%, lead levels fell by 88%, nitrogen dioxide

levels fell by 12%, and ozone levels fell by 9%. With the

exception of ozone, the average concentrations are below the

NAAQSs. It is unclear how these reductions have improved

human health conditions, but illnesses due to chronic lead

exposure are down. Ozone probably causes the most health

937

problems in affected areas, since the NAAQS for it is most

often exceeded. Due to other complex factors, though, it is

unclear how much of a problem it is.

Though the Clean Air Act allows one violation per

year for each of the one-hour, eight-hour, and twenty-four

hour NAAQSs for each pollutant, most urban areas, called

non-attainment areas, violate standards much more often.

For example, in Los Angeles the ozone standard was ex-

ceeded an average of 123 times annually in 1983, 1984, and

1985. As of 1989, 341 counties had ozone non-attainment,

317 had particulate non-attainment, 123 had carbon monox-

ide non-attainment, sixty-seven had sulfur dioxide non-at-

tainment, and four had nitrogen dioxide non-attainment. A

total of 529 counties had not met standards on at least one

criteria pollutant.

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act dealt with

the problem of such non-attainment areas. Six categories

of ozone non-attainment were established, ranging from

marginal to extreme, and two categories for both carbon

monoxide and particulate matter were established. Deadlines

to achieve the NAAQSs were extended from three to twenty

years. Increased restrictions were required in non-attainment

areas; existing controls were tightened and smaller sources

were made subject to regulation. Also, annual reduction goals

were mandated. Areas considered to have made inadequate

progress toward reaching attainment are subjected to strin-

gent regulations on new plants and limited use of federal

highway funds. See also Air pollution control; Air pollution

index; Air quality criteria; Heavy metals and heavy metal

poisoning; Nonpoint source; Point source

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Bryner, G. C. Blue Skies, Green Politics: The Clean Air Act of 1990. Washing-

ton, DC: CQ Press, 1993.

Melnick, R. S. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1983.

Portney, P. R. “Air Pollution Policy.” In Public Policies for Environmental

Protection, edited by P. R. Portney. Washington, DC: Resources for the

Future, 1990.

National Audubon Society

The National Audubon Society (NAS) is one of the largest

and oldest

conservation

organizations in the world.

Founded in New York City in February 1886, its original

purpose was to protect American birds from destruction for

the millinery trade. Many

species

of birds were being killed

and sold as adornments to women’s hat and bonnets, as well

as other clothing. The first preservation battle taken on by

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

the NAS was the snowy egret—a white, wading marshland

bird—whose long plumes were in high demand. The group

was instrumental in securing passage of the New York Bird

Law in 1886, an act for the preservation of the state’s avi-

fauna.

The NAS was named after John James Audubon, the

nineteenth-century artist and naturalist. Audubon was not

a conservationist; he often killed dozens of birds to get a

single individual that was right for his paintings. But he had

published his life-sized renderings of all the birds in North

America in 1850, and his name was the one most closely

associated with birds when the society was founded.

The protection of

wildlife

and habitats continues to

be the primary focus of the NAS. Since their founding,

much of their conservation work has been accomplished

through education. Their Audubon magazine is perhaps their

most important educational tool. They also publish American

Birds, which records many of the field observations reported

to the society from around the country.

One of the most important observations published in

American Birds is the data recorded on Christmas Bird

Counts, an annual winter bird census maintained by NAS

since 1900. During a three-week period from December to

early January, teams of observers count and record every

different species of bird observed within a 24-hour period

in a designated circle, 15 mi (24 km) in diameter. The count

circles remain constant from year to year which allows for

comparison of data collected. The first circle was Central

Park in New York City; the number of circles have grown

from one to over 1,600 in recent years. Thousands of people

participate in this annual event.

Additional educational and conservation programs

have proven successful for NAS over the years, including a

nature club for children and a series of

ecology

camps for

the field study of different ecosystems in North America.

The society has also produced nature films and nationally

televised programs on environmental issues facing the world

today. NAS also addresses these issues through lobbying on

a national level in Washington, D.C., and on regional and

local levels by members of the several hundred local Audubon

Societies, clubs, and state coalitions nationwide. With over

half a million environmentally-conscious members, the Na-

tional Audubon Society continues to make a difference in

the battle to conserve the natural world and the wildlife in it.

[Eugene C. Beckham]

RGANIZATIONS

National Audubon Society, 700 Broadway, New York, NY USA 10003

(212) 979-3000, Fax: (212) 979-3188, <http://www.audubon.org>

938

National Biological Service

see

Biological Resources Division;

Biological Resources Division

National Coalition Against the Misuse

of Pesticides

see

Beyond Pesticides

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Emission standards

for hazardous air pollutants are set

forth in the Section 112 of the

Clean Air Act

of 1970 and

the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

. Section 112

directed the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to

issue a list of hazardous pollutants that were to be regulated.

However, the provisions of the 1970 Clean Air Act that

were designed to regulate hazardous pollutants proved to be

ineffective. Although more than 300 toxic substances are

known to be emitted into the air, between 1970 and 1990

emission

standards were established for only eight sub-

stances:

asbestos

benzene

, beryllium, coke oven emis-

sions, inorganic

arsenic

mercury

radionuclides

, and

vi-

nyl chloride

. Although the EPA had epidemiologic and

laboratory data that linked more than sixty other airborne

toxins

with

cancer

birth defects

, or neurological disease,

they remained unregulated. The regulatory process specified

by Section 112 was expensive and conservative. It required

the EPA to gather sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an

airborne toxin was hazardous before it could act. Frequently,

there was a lack of scientific information on the health effects

of these toxins. There was also a strong potential for legal

challenges by industry.

Records dating from 1987 indicated that between 1987

and 1989, over 2 billion pounds of toxic

chemicals

were

released into the air each year. Furthermore, more toxic

chemicals were released into the air than into any other

medium (water or

soil

) during these three years. Environ-

mentalists and their supporters in Congress argued that the

1970 program had not been successful. The issue of airborne

toxins was a major

air pollution

problem that was not being

adequately addressed by Section 112. For this reason, an

improved program to regulate airborne toxins became a cen-

tral component in the efforts to amend the Clean Air Act.

One of the major components in the 1990 Clean Air

Act included provisions to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

Title III of the law required the thousands of sources of

airborne toxins in the country to use the best available tech-

nologies to control hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The

act listed 189 chemicals that are considered HAPs. This

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

effectively removed the power to designate hazardous air

pollutants from the EPA. However, the legislation did pro-

vide a mechanism to designate other HAPs for regulation

in the future. Since 2000, all major stationary sources, regard-

less of age, location, or size, have been required to meet

emission standards for every HAP established by the EPA.

Major sources of HAPs (those emitting at least 10 tons of

one pollutant or 25 tons of a combination of pollutants, per

year) are required to apply “maximum achievable control

technology” (MACT) and are required to receive emission

permits. An incentive-based provision of the 1990 Clean Air

Act ensured that sources that voluntarily and permanently

achieved HAP reductions of 90% (from 1987 levels) could

postpone instillation of MACT for up to six years.

Under the revised law, the EPA was directed to focus

on those HAPs and sources that are deemed the most dan-

gerous. Further, the EPA was directed to devise strategies

to control all sources of HAPs in urban areas. By the year

2000, the EPA was mandated to identify the 30 HAPs that

posed the greatest threat to human health and to identify

the sources generating 90% of these emissions. The EPA

was also to devise a strategy to reduce HAP-related cancer

risk by 75%. It ws estimated that these additional provisions

would reduce hazardous air pollutants from industrial sources

by 75–90%. The EPA has undertaken programs to comply

with these directives. As of 2002, the EPA has not completed

any of the mandates.

[L. Fleming Fallon Jr., M.D., Dr.P.H.]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Alley, E. R., Cleland, W.L. and Stevens, L.B. Air Quality Control Handbook.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Davis, Wayne T. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 2nd ed. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, 2000.

Liu, D. H., and B. G. Liptbak. Air Pollution Boca Raton: Lewis Publish-

ers, 1999.

Wirth, John D. Smelter Smoke in North America: The Politics of Transborder

Pollution. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1999.

THER

American Meteorological Society. Clean Air Act. [July 2002]. <http://

www.ametsoc.org/AMS/sloan/cleanair/cleanairlegisl.html>.

National Environmental Policy Act

(1969)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

was signed into law on January 1, 1970, launching a decade

marked by passage of key environmental legislation and in-

creased awareness of environmental problems. The act estab-

lished the first comprehensive national policies and goals for

939

the protection, maintenance, and use of the

environment

The act also established the

Council on Environmental

Quality

(CEQ) to oversee NEPA and advise the president

on environmental issues.

Title I of NEPA declares that the federal government

will use all practicable means and measures to create and

maintain conditions under which people and

nature

can

exist in productive harmony, while fulfilling the social and

economic requirements of the American people. Included

in this declaration are goals to attain the widest range of

beneficial uses of the environment without undesirable con-

sequences and to preserve culturally and aesthetically impor-

tant features of the landscape. The declaration also commits

each generation of Americans to stewardship of the environ-

ment for

future generations

To achieve the national environmental goals, the act

directs all federal agencies to evaluate the impacts of major

federal actions upon the environment. Before taking an ac-

tion, each federal agency must prepare a statement describing

(1) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (2)

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, (3)

alternatives to the proposal, (4) short-term versus long-term

impacts, and (5) any irreversible effects on resources that

would result if the action were implemented. The act requires

any federal, state, or local agency with jurisdiction over the

impacted environment to take part in the decision-making

process. The general public also is given opportunities to take

part in the NEPA process through hearings and meetings, or

by submitting written comments to agencies involved in a

project.

Title II of NEPA created the CEQ, as part of the

Executive Office of the President, to oversee implementation

of NEPA and assist the president in preparing an annual

environmental quality report. The CEQ existed until Febru-

ary 1993, when President Clinton abolished the council

and established the White House Office on Environmental

Policy, with broader powers to coordinate national environ-

mental policy. The CEQ issued regulations in 1978 which

implement NEPA and are binding on all federal agencies.

The regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) cover procedures

and administration of NEPA, including preparation of envi-

ronmental assessments and environmental impact state-

ments. Many federal agencies have established their own

NEPA regulations, following CEQ regulations, but custo-

mized for the particular activities of the agencies. In addition,

11 states have passed state environmental policy acts, some-

times called “little NEPAs.”

Federal agencies must incorporate the NEPA review

process early in project planning. A complete environmental

analysis can be very complex, involving potential effects on

physical, chemical, biological and social factors of the pro-

posed project and its alternatives. Various systematic meth-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

ods have been developed to deal with the complexity of

environmental analysis. There are three levels at which an

action may be evaluated, depending on how large an impact

it will have on the environment.

The first level is categorical exclusion which allows an

undertaking to be exempt from detailed evaluation if it meets

previously determined criteria designated as having no sig-

nificant environmental impact. Some federal agencies have

lists of actions which have been thus categorically excluded

from evaluation under NEPA.

When an action cannot be excluded under the first

level of analysis, the agency involved may prepare an environ-

mental assessment to determine if the action will have a

significant environment effect. An environmental assess-

ment is a brief statement of the impacts of the action and

alternatives. If the assessment determines there will not be

significant environmental consequences, the agency issues a

finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The finding may

describe measures that will be taken to reduce potential

impacts. An agency can skip the second level if it anticipates

in advance that there will be significant impacts.

An action moves to the third level of analysis, an

environmental impact statement

(EIS), if the environ-

mental assessment determines there will be significant envi-

ronmental impacts. An EIS is a detailed evaluation of the

action and alternatives, and it is used to make decisions on

how to proceed with the action. An agency preparing an

EIS must release a draft statement for comment and review

by other agencies, local governments, and the general public.

A final statement is released with modifications based on

the results of the public review of the draft statement. When

more than one agency is involved in an action, a lead agency

is designated to coordinate the environmental analysis. An

agency also may be called upon to cooperate in an environ-

mental analysis if it has expertise in an area of concern. The

CEQ regulations describe a process for settling disagree-

ments which arise between agencies involved in an environ-

mental analysis.

In addition to having to prepare their own environ-

mental assessments and environmental impact statements,

the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is involved

in all NEPA review processes of other federal agencies, as

mandated by Section 309 of the

Clean Air Act

. Section 309

was added to the Clean Air Act in 1970, after NEPA was

passed and the EPA formed, with the purpose of ensuring

independent reviews of all federal actions impacting the

environment. As a result, the EPA reviews and comments

on all federal environmental impact statements in draft and

final form, on proposed environmental regulations and legis-

lation, and on other proposed federal projects the EPA

considers to have significant environmental impacts. The

EPA’s procedures for carrying out the Section 309 require-

940

ments are contained in the publication “Policies and Proce-

dures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Envi-

ronment” (revised 1984). The EPA is also responsible for

many of the administrative aspects of the EIS filing process.

The NEPA review process includes an evaluation of a proj-

ect’s compliance with other environmental laws such as the

Clean Air Act. Federal agencies often integrate NEPA re-

views with review requirements of other environmental laws

to expedite decision-making and reduce costs and effort.

NEPA requires that previously unquantified environ-

mental amenities be given consideration in decision-making

along with more technical considerations. That means that

the environmental analysis can be a subjective process, guided

by the values of the particular players in any given project.

The act does not define what constitutes a major action or

what is considered a significant effect on the environment.

Some agencies have developed their own guidelines for what

types of actions are considered major. Examples of major

actions include construction projects such as highway expan-

sion and creek channelization. However, major actions do

not always involve construction. For example, legislative

changes which may affect the environment may come under

NEPA review. When an action will be controversial or

clearly violate a pre-set environmental standard, it also may

be categorized as a major action with significant impacts.

Actions which will have less measurable effects, such as

disrupting scenic beauty, must be categorized more subjec-

tively. The courts are frequently used to settle disputes about

whether actions require compliance with NEPA.

Although NEPA is targeted to federal agencies, its

implementation has resulted in closer scrutiny of major envi-

ronmental actions other than those sponsored by the govern-

ment. Environmental analyses also are required for private

developments which need federal

pollution control

permits

such as water discharges, air emissions, waste disposal, and

wetlands

filling. See also Environmental impact assessment

[Teresa C. Donkin]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Fogelman, V. M. Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act: Interpreta-

tions, Applications and Compliance. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1990.

ERIODICALS

Caldwell, L. K. “20 Years With NEPA Indicates the Need.” Environment

31 (December 1989): 6–15.

Parenteau, P. A. “NEPA at Twenty: Great Disappointment or Whopping

Success?” Audubon 92 (March 1990): 104–07.

THER

Facts about the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, September 1989.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Estuary Program

National Environmental Satellite,

Data and Information Service

see

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)

National Estuary Program

The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in

1987 when amendments to the

Clean Water Act

provided

that the significant estuaries of the United States must be

identified, and protected. According to the

National Oce-

anic and Atmospheric Administration

, (NOAA) in its

publication Where the Rivers Meet the Sea, “An estuary occurs

where saltwater from the sea meets and mixes with fresh

water from the land.” Estuaries are places where fresh and

salt water mix. They are known as bays, harbors, sounds, or

lagoons, as well. As much as 80% of the fish that are caught

for food or for

recreation

depend on estuaries for all or

part of their lives, according to the National Association of

Estuary Programs. Because of their vital role in the impact

of marine life, estuaries are often referred to as “cradles of

the sea.” The water bodies of the United States that play

close to hearts of Americans and foreign visitors alike are

estuaries—San Francisco Bay,

Chesapeake Bay

, Puget

Sound, and Long Island Sound.

The extensive

ecosystem

that comprises all estuaries

creates a similar balance of characteristics, as well as inherent

problems. A continual force of tides and winds mix salt and

fresh water constantly. Excessive

nutrient pollution

and loss

of natural habitats—many due to human manipulation—

can upset that mix and create an inhospitable

environment

for the living organisms that reside there. The estuary is not

alone in its environmental home. The surrounding

wet-

lands

, rivers, and streams, as well as the land that courses

through it and around it are all an integral piece of a whole

that affects both humans and

wildlife

in their struggles for

survival. The NOAA points out also that, “Estuaries are

among the most biologically productive systems on earth.

More than two-thirds of the fish and shellfish commercially

harvested in coastal waters spend part or all their lives in

estuaries.”

As of 2002, the EPA had identified the key issues in

managing estuaries, particularly those in the NEP, as well

as the challenges they face in their survival. Common to

each of the 28 areas named in the NEP are:

overenrichment of nutrients—nitrogen and

phosphorus

are vital to a healthy aquatic system; in excess, they cause

or add to fish disease, red or brown tide, algae blooms,

and low dissolved oxygen

941

pathogen contamination—viruses, bacteria, and

parasites

that indicate a health hazard to swimmers, surfers, divers,

and seafood consumers

toxic chemicals—metals,

polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-

bons

(PAHs)

polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs),

heavy metals

, and pesticides, all particularly threatening

to humans who would consume any fish or seafood from

the water body

alteration of fresh water inflow

habitat

loss and degradation—the ecological balance of

any estuary depends on the health of a habitat for survival

decline in the fish and wildlife population.

introduction of invasive species—either by intention or

accident, such an addition can upset the balance of the

system and create unexpected impacts economically, so-

cially, and ecologically

As a voluntary, community based

watershed

pro-

gram, the NEP has not only set as its goal to improve the

quality of water in the estuaries. The program has sought to

improve the entire ecological system—its chemical, physical,

and biological properties, in addition to its economic, recre-

ational, and aesthetic values. As of 2002, there were 102

estuaries in the United States. Only 28 of those have been

designated as “nationally significant” and are therefore the

focus of the entire effort of restoration and preservation.

These 28 estuaries include 42% of the continental United

States shoreline, with over half of the population living in

the nation’s coastal counties.

Since June 1995, the 28 nationally significant estuaries

are Albemarle-Pimlico, NC; Barartaria-Terrebone, LA;

Barnegat Bay, NJ; Buzzards Bay, MA; Casco Bay, ME;

Charlotte Harbor, FL; Corpus Christi, TX; Delaware Estu-

ary Program, DE, PA, NJ; Delaware Inland Bays, DE;

Galveston Bay, TX; Indian River

Lagoon

, FL; Long Island

Sound, NY and CT; Lower Columbia River, OR and WA;

Maryland Coastal Bay, MD; Massachusetts Bay, MA; Mo-

bile Bay, AL; Morro Bay, CA; Narragansett Bay, RI; New

Hampshire Estuaries, NH; New York–New Jersey Harbor,

NY and NJ; Peconic Bay, NY; Puget Sound, WA; San

Francisco Bay, CA; San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico; Santa Mon-

ica Bay, CA; Sarasota Bay, FL; Tampa Bay, FL; and, Tilla-

mook Bay, OR. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland by itself

is not specifically included in the NEP but is related to

it. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a separate, federally-

mandated program.

Economic factors as well as environmental concerns

play a significant role in the maintenance of estuaries, pri-

marily in estimating their worth. Each year, these particular

estuaries account for over $7 billion in revenue from com-

mercial and recreational fishing and related marine indus-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Estuary Program

tries; $16 billion is generated by the attendant tourism and

recreation activities.

The program as it has been established is a descendant

of the early environmental programs of the 1970s and 1980s

that sought to restore the

Great Lakes

and the Chesapeake

Bay—all of which had become polluted to such an extent

that concerns of whether the problems could be reversed

were tantamount to the discussions and burgeoning activism

that sought to fix them. When Cleveland’s

Cuyahoga River

set fire in 1970 the laughter that was provoked publicly was

only to hide a city’s, and a nation’s horror, that such an

event had occurred.

Chesapeake Bay was about to meet a similarly dark

fate with out of control pollution, unbridled industrial and

private development, and a fishing industry that was dying.

In 1983 the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylva-

nia, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and the EPA adminis-

trator signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement committing

their states and the District of Columbia to prepare plans

for protecting and improving the

water quality

and living

resources of the bay.

The implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Program,

along with the 1965

Water Resources

and Planning Act,

the 1972 Federal

Water Pollution

Control Act, and the

1977 Clean Water Act laid the groundwork for the Compre-

hensive Conservation Management Plans (CCMP) for the

estuaries that had been identified.

The process for developing the CCMP for the national

estuaries involves four steps:

building a management and decision-making framework

scientifically characterizing existing resources and identi-

fying priority problems

developing both conventional and innovative solutions to

identified problems

implementing the management recommendations, with

support from public and private sectors

Each local community has a particular stake in main-

taining the estuary in its midst. The NEP is designed so

that each community takes responsibility for managing it.

Representatives from local, state, and federal governmental

agencies join together to serve as managers of the estuaries.

Local citizens, business leaders, educators, and researchers

serve on a volunteer basis, too, and all groups work together

to create their individual CCMPs. On the national level,

the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) administers

the NEP—but the programs are carried out by the previously

mentioned people. Nominations for determining significant

estuaries are also handled by the EPA submitted to them

by the governors of the states where the estuary is located.

It is after an estuary has been named that the committees

continue with their participation.

942

The Association of National Estuary Programs

(ANEP) is a trade association that supports the 28 NEP

estuaries, and provides for a joint effort in addressing the

issues facing citizens and lawmakers. The ANEP has been

successful in getting key legislation passed as in the instance

of Senate Bill 835, signed by President Clinton; and respon-

sible for committing federal dollars to restore a million acres

of estuary habitat, and ensuring the continued survival of

the National Estuary Program. The Estuaries and Clean Wa-

ters Act of 2000 “authorizes a total of $275 million” until

2005 for matching funds for local restoration projects and

also designates an additional $35 million per year until 2004

in support of the NEP. That bill also served to clear up the

issue that NEP funds could be used to carry out existing,

locally-crafted CCMPs for the 28 NEPs throughout the

United States.

In celebration of the NEPs tenth anniversary in 1987,

the EPA prepared a “Ten-year perspective” it has posted

through it web site. It notes that, “A number of key lessons

have been learned over the past 10 years. The NEP has

demonstrated that community-based resource management

achieves results. Although it takes time to see environmental

changes such as improvements in water quality, progress is

being made. In order to demonstrate improvements in an

estuary, we have seen the importance of NEPs setting mea-

surable environmental goals and indicators.” Of the many

local programs, EPA noted that, “the NEPs have created

innovative management approaches to solve these [of the

estuaries] common problems. They have employed alterna-

tive on-site

wastewater

treatment technologies to control

nitrogen

; established marina pump-out facilities; provided

education and training for owners, installers, and pumpers

of septic systems to reduce pathogens; promoted beneficial

uses of dredged material to restore and create wetland habi-

tat; installed fish passages to increase spawning; and, helped

citizen volunteers remove invasive plant

species

from public

areas.”

There are a total of 130 estuaries in the United States—

the question remains whether or not all of these should also

become a part of the NEP. What improvements have been

accomplished through the designated 28, however, can serve

as focal points for improvements for those not named.

Re-

store America’s Estuaries (RES)

is an organization dedi-

cated to preserving the coastal integrity through the improve-

ment of all estuaries, including those other then the 28 in the

NEP. RES has prepared its document entitled, A National

Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine Habitat whose stated

purpose it is to “provide a framework for restoring function

to coastal and estuarine habitat.” As with the ANEP, the

work of RES includes professionals and citizens—scientists,

community leaders, nongovernmental organizations, and

governmental representatives from various agencies and lev-

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National forest

els.

Communities Actively Restoring Estuaries (C.A.R.E.)

as of 2002, is scheduled to work in a three-year, $12 million

in partnership with the NOAA’s

Community-Based Resto-

ration Program

to activate “on-the-ground” habitat resto-

ration in 11 major estuaries throughout the United States.

The program funds salt marsh restoration, oyster reef resto-

ration, the installation of fishways, shoreline restoration, and

other projects.

[Jane E. Spear]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Texas Water Resources. Precursors of the National Estuary Program. 1995

[cited June 2002]. <http://www.twri.tamu.edu>.

THER

Associaation of National Estuary Programs. 2002 [cited July 2002]. <http://

www.anep-usa.org>.

Environmental Protection Agency. The National Estuary Program. [cited

July 2002]. <http://www.epa.gov>.

Estuarine Research Federation. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.erf.org>.

Restore America’s Estuaries. [cited July 2002]. <http://www.estuaries.org>.

RGANIZATIONS

Association of National Estuary Programs, 4505 Carrico Drive, Annandale,

VA USA 22003 (703) 333-6150, Fax: (703) 658-5353, , <http://

www.anep-usa.org>

Estuarine Research Foundation, P.O. Box 510, Port Republic, MD USA

20676 (410) 586-0997, Fax: (410) 586-9226, , <http://www.erf.org>

Restore America’s Estuaries, 3801 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 53, Arlington,

VA USA 22203 (703) 524-0248, Fax: )703) 524-0287, , <http://

www.estuaries.org>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. USA 20460 (202) 260-2090, , <http://www.epa.gov>

National forest

A national forest is forest land owned and administered by

a national government. Mandates designating national forest

ownership, administration and the distribution of benefits

vary greatly around the world. Some nations (e.g. Canada)

retain little or no national forest, delegating

public land

ownership to regional provinces or communities. Other na-

tions (e.g. Albania and other formerly Communist States)

retain all public forests as national forests. In many former

colonies, national forest administration is patterned after

that of the colonizing nation, and lands now comprising

national forests were appropriated from

indigenous peo-

ples

. In all cases, the term national forest refers to a type

of state (i.e. government) property and must not be confused

with forests that are owned as common property (i.e. private

forest owned by a group) or private property. The precepts

943

of modern national forests originated in early eighteenth

century France and Germany where feudal lords set aside

forests to preserve

hunting

grounds. National forest admin-

istration stems from this tradition of managing the forests

for the direct benefit of central government authorities.

As in several nations in Southeast Asia, national forests

in Indonesia comprise the vast majority of national territory,

and colonial-style legal and organizational structures con-

tinue to dominate management. Forests are centrally admin-

istered by the State Forest Corporation with provinces given

some authority over harvesting and marketing. Shared gov-

ernment and private party forestry successions are common.

Indonesia derives a substantial portion of national income

from timber production and has been charged with excluding

the concerns of indigenous peoples from management de-

cision.

In 1957 the government of Nepal nationalized all for-

ested land, the majority of which was previously managed

as community common property. This act resulted in the

breakdown of community management systems and acceler-

ated

deforestation

and forest degradation. The Forest Act

of 1992 seeks to reverse these trends and divides national

forests into five classes: community forests (managed by

community user groups); leasehold forests (leased to private

entities for timber production); government managed forests

(retained by government for national purposes); protection

forests (managed by government for environmental protec-

tion); and religious forests.

In the United States the term national forest refers to

specific federal land units that are administered by the

U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service

(USDAFS).

The USDAFS currently administers 156 national forests

entailing 223 million acres and covering about one-tenth

of the nation’s land area. Establishment of these forests

beginning in 1903 was largely a response to growing public

fears of timber

famine

, wildfires,

flooding

, depleted

wild-

life

populations, and damage to the beauty of the national

landscape. National

forest management

is governed by

federal law and edicts from the executive branch of govern-

ment. The USDAFS is currently mandated to: 1) manage

forests for multiple uses (wood, water,

recreation

, wildlife,

and

wilderness

in perpetuity); 2) protect the habitats of

endangered species

; 3) impartially serve the public interest

in choosing between management alternatives. National for-

ests have been the focus of great conflict since the 1960s

when the environmental movement began challenging US-

DAFS actions. Recent legislation, and numerous federal

court decisions, have resulted in greater integration of public

opinion into the USDAFS decision-making process.

[T. Anderson White]

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Forest Management Act (1976)

ESOURCES

OOKS

Peluso, N. L. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in

Java. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

Poffenberger, M., ed. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives

in Southeast Asia. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1990.

ERIODICALS

Bromley, D. W. “Property Relations and Economic Development: The

Other Land Reform.” World Development 17 (1989): 867–77.

Gericke, K. L., J. Sullivan, and J. D. Wellman. “Public Participation in

National Forest Planning: Perspectives, Procedures and Costs.” Journal of

Forestry 90 (1992): 35–38.

Pardo, R. “Back to the Future: Nepal’s New Forestry Legislation.” Journal

of Forestry 91 (1993): 22–26.

National Forest Management Act

(1976)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), passed

in 1976, is the law that established the guidelines for the

management of national forests. The act replaced the Or-

ganic Act of 1897, which had supplied such guidelines for

the previous seventy-nine years. The impetus for this new

bill was a court case related to

clear-cutting

on the Monon-

gahela National Forest in West Virginia. Such clear-cutting

had begun on this forest in the 1960s, and many environmen-

tal and

recreation

groups opposed it. When the

Forest

Service

continued this management technique, the

Izaak

Walton League

filed suit against the agency, claiming that

clear-cutting violated the Organic Act on three counts: that

only mature timber was to be harvested, that all timber cut

had to be marked and designated, and that all timber cut

had to be removed from the forest. The Court ruled in favor

of the Izaak Walton League; clear-cutting did violate the

Organic Act on each of these counts (Izaak Walton League

v. Butz, (1973)). The judge issued an injunction against any

cutting in West Virginia that violated the Organic Act. The

Forest Service appealed, but lost, and the injunction was

spread throughout the Fourth Circuit of the Court of Ap-

peals (Izaak Walton League v. Butz (1975)). Injunctions

based on similar cases were soon issued in Alaska and Texas.

With timber harvesting on the national forests in chaos, the

Forest Service and timber industry turned to Congress for

new management authority.

Congressional action came quickly due to these court

decisions. The debate centered around bills introduced by

Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, more favorable

to industry, and by Senator Jennings Randolph of West

Virginia, supported by environmentalists. The final act was

based primarily on the Humphrey bill. The act basically

gave legislative approval to how the Forest Service had been

managing the national forests. It granted the agency a great

944

deal of administrative discretion to manage the forests based

on the general philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield.

Five of the most contentious issues regarding national

forest management

were discussed in the law, but the

fundamental issues were left unresolved. Clear-cutting is

recognized as a legitimate management technique, and the

Forest Service was given qualified discretion to determine

when and how this approach would be used.

Species

diver-

sity is to be considered in forest management, but the specif-

ics are left to agency discretion. The Forest Service is directed

to identify marginal lands and, based on agency discretion,

to move away from timber management on these lands.

Trees should be cut at a mature age when possible, but

rotation age can be lessened if the agency deems it necessary.

Finally, timber is to be harvested based on nondeclining

even flow, which is a very conservative approach to sustained

yield. Forest Service management decisions on these deci-

sions have continued to stir debate. The NFMA also sub-

stantially amended the interdisciplinary national forest plan-

ning provisions of the Resources Planning Act of 1974. See

also Biodiversity; Deforestation; Forest decline; Environ-

mental law; Sustainable development

[Christopher McGrory Klyza]

ESOURCES

OOKS

Clary, D. A. Timber and the Forest Service. Lawrence, KS: University Press

of Kansas, 1986.

Dana, S. T., and S. K. Fairfax. Forest and Range Policy. 2nd ed. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1980.

National Institute for the Environment

The National Institute for the Environment (NIE) was a

proposed federal agency conceived in 1989 by a group of

scientists, environmentalists, and policy analysts who were

concerned that the nation’s decision makers did not have

adequate scientific information to make suitable environ-

mental policies. They were also concerned that the existing

federal environmental research and development activities

were spread over many uncoordinated agencies, each with

different missions and interests therefore preventing an inte-

grated effort to resolve environmental problems. Led by Dr.

Stephen Hubbell of Princeton University and Dr. Henry

Howe of the University of Illinois, Chicago, the group devel-

oped a proposal to establish the NIE. This initiative to create

the NIE was promoted by the National Council on Science

and the Environment (NCSE), formerly called the Commit-

tee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE).

Formed in the late 1980s, the NCSE is a national

nonprofit organization comprising 15 board members and

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Institute for the Environment

over 9,000 scientists, educators, business leaders, state and

local government officials, environmental advocates, and

other interested individuals from around the country whose

goal it was to work with the United States Congress to

establish the National Institute for the Environment (NIE).

The goal of the NIE was to have an independent,

nonregulatory, federal institute similar to the National Insti-

tutes of Health that focuses on environmental problems.

The NIE was to promote better communication between

scientists and policy makers to help balance social, economic,

and environmental goals. The NIE would also have concen-

trate activities in four integrated areas: identification and

assessment of current knowledge of environmental problems

of national interest through a Center for Environmental

Assessment; the funding of peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary

research to increase scientific understanding of these envi-

ronmental problems through three research divisions; devel-

opment of an electronic, on-line library (the National Library

for the Environment) to disseminate environmental infor-

mation; and support of education and training of scientists

and other professionals interested in working on environ-

mental issues. The NIE was to have been led by a President-

appointed Board of Governors representing federal and non-

federal scientists, state and local government, environmental

organizations, citizen groups, academia, and industry.

Within the NIE, a Center for Environmental Assess-

ment was to be established to perform evaluations on the

current state of knowledge of particular environmental issues.

Assessments would include a review of existing scientific

information on an identified environmental problem, an

assessment of policy decisions made based on existing infor-

mation, and the identification of additional research needed

to fill information gaps to improve the scientific basis for

policy development.

The centerpiece of the NIE was the research it would

sponsor. Experts in the natural sciences, engineering, eco-

nomics, and the social sciences were to work cooperatively on

complex environmental topics that could potentially require

long-term investigations. Research funded by NIE was to

be administered by three directors: a Director of

Environ-

mental Resources

, a Director of Environmental Systems,

and a Director of Environmental Sustainability. The Direc-

tor of Environmental Resources would develop research pro-

grams to inventory

natural resources

, monitor and predict

change to environmental systems, and develop tools for im-

proved environmental assessment. The Director of Environ-

mental Systems would focus on creating a research program

to improve understanding of the functioning of environmen-

tal systems and human impact on these systems. For exam-

ple, possible research programs could include an evaluation

of the ecological and social effects of global

climate

change

and research to distinguish between natural

ecosystem

vari-

945

ation and environmental change due to human activities.

The director of Environmental Sustainability would concen-

trate on issues related to maintaining

environmental health

while utilizing resources in such a way to ensure their avail-

ability and viability in the future.

A key component of the NIE would be to provide

information to decision makers, researchers, environmental

managers, educators and other professionals, and the public

at large. An electronic, on-line National Library for the

Environment would be developed. The Committee for the

National Institute for the Environment is in the process of

establishing a prototype that can be accessed electronically.

The prototype library will include research reports from the

Congressional Research Service, an environmental encyclo-

pedia, and peer-reviewed and nonpeer-reviewed research ar-

ticles.

The NIE would support higher education training

(i.e., education above the high school level) through research

grants, fellowships, teacher training, and grants to develop

environmental programs at colleges and universities. The

NIE would also maintain a small in-house Center for Integ-

rative Studies on the Environment that would invite visiting

scholars to work with a core of scientific staff to evaluate

emerging environmental issues on which NIE and other

federal agencies need to focus.

The NIE proposal was endorsed by over 150 colleges

and universities, scientific, professional, environmental, and

business organizations, and state and local governments.

Legislation to create the NIE was first introduced in 1989.

The legislation was reintroduced in the 103rd Congress and

again in 1995 during the 104th Congress by Representative

Jim Saxton (R-NJ). The bill was co-sponsored by numerous

Democratic and Republican members of Congress. The bill

was referred to the House Committee on Science where

in 1997 it awaited consideration by the Subcommittee on

Energy and the Environment

According to an NCSE update issued in January 2000,

in 1999 they supsended the creation of the NIE and the

“National Science Board approved an interim report recom-

mending that the National Science Foundation implement

most of the activities initially proposed for a National Insti-

tute for the Environment. In October 1999, [NCSE] an-

nounced its support for the full and effective implementation

of this report and suspended its call for the creation of a

National Institute for the Environment to work in support

of the National Science Foundation initiative.”

[Marci L. Bortman Ph.D.]

ESOURCES

ERIODICALS

Benedick, R. “NIE: Its Time Has Come,” Chemistry and Industry (1996): 64.

Environmental Encyclopedia 3

National Institute for Urban Wildlife

Since its founding in 1973 as the Urban

Wildlife

Research

Center, this organization has promoted the preservation of

wildlife in urban settings. In 1983, it became the National

Institute for Urban Wildlife and continues to provide sup-

port to individuals and organizations involved in maintaining

a place for wildlife in the expanding American cities and

suburbs. The institute conducts research exploring the rela-

tionship between humans and wildlife in urban areas, publi-

cizes methods of urban

wildlife management

, and raises

public awareness of the value of wildlife in city settings. Its

activities are divided into four programs: research, urban

conservation

education, technical services, and urban wild-

life sanctuaries.

The research program provides specific information

on the interplay between urban dwellers and wildlife. Devel-

opers, engineers, government agencies, industry, planners,

students, and the general public use the research conducted

by the institute. Some of the studies published by the insti-

tute have included Planning for Wildlife in Cities and Suburbs;

Urban Wetlands for Stormwater Control and Wildlife Enhance-

ment; Planning for Urban Fishing and Waterfront Recreation;

Highway-Wildlife Relationships: A State-of-the-Art Report;

and An Annotated Bibliography on Planning and Management

for Urban-Suburban Wildlife.

Through its educational arm, the institute publishes

numerous documents on the major issues of wildlife to pro-

fessional environmentalists as well as to the general public.

Among these publications is the quarterly Urban Wildlife

News, the official publication of the organization. In addition

to the newsletter, the institute publishes other resources

such as the Urban Wildlife Manager’s Notebook, the Wildlife

Habitat Conservation Teacher’s PAC series, and A Guide to

Urban Wildlife Management.

Technical services are provided by the institute to ur-

ban planners, developers, land managers, state and federal

non-game programs, and homeowners. Among the informa-

tion and services offered are environmental assessments and

impact statements, open space planning and management,

recreational planning, experimental design, urban

wetlands

enhancement, data analysis, literature research, and expert

testimony.

The urban wildlife sanctuaries program is designed to

create a network of certified sanctuaries on public and private

land across the United States. Landowners who dedicate

their land to wildlife preservation and are certified by the

institute receive support from the institute’s wildlife biolo-

gists.

The institute’s 1,000 members include organizations

and individuals who are concerned with the preservation

of wildlife in urban settings. Although there is no official

946

volunteer program offered through the institute, guidance

is available to members working in grassroots organizations.

[Linda M. Ross]

ESOURCES

RGANIZATIONS

National Institute for Urban Wildlife, 10921 Trotting Ridge Way,

Columbia, MD USA 21044

National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences (Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina)

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

(NIEHS) is one of 24 components of the National Institutes

of Health (NIH), which is part of the

U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

(DHHS). The mission of

NIEHS is to conduct research on environment-related dis-

eases. The focus of research is on understanding how envi-

ronmental factors, individual susceptibility, and age interre-

late to cause human illness and on the development of

methods to reduce these illnesses. NIEHS achieves its mis-

sion through biomedical research programs, prevention and

intervention activities, and communication strategies that

include training, education, technology transfer, and com-

munity outreach.

NIEHS was established as the Division of Environ-

mental Health Sciences within NIH in 1966. In 1967, the

Research Triangle Foundation in North Carolina presented

the U.S. Surgeon General with 509 acres (206 ha) in the

Research Triangle Park to serve as a site for NIEHS. In

1969, the Division of Environmental Health Sciences was

raised to Institute status.

Research is conducted through both on-site resources

and an extramural science program. The Division of Extra-

mural Research and Training (DERT) supports a network

of university-based environmental health science centers and

also provides research and training grants and contracts for

research and development. Through DERT, NIEHS sup-

ported the research of Dr. Mario J. Molina of the Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology (MIT), who was a co-recipient

of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work showing the

loss of the earth’s protective

ozone

shield.

The purpose of the Division of Intramural Research

(DIR) is to provide research to address the environmental

components of many different diseases. Dr. Martin Rodbell,

an NIEHS scientist in DIR, was a co-recipient of the Nobel

Prize in Medicine for discoveries about the communication

system that regulates cellular activity. DIR is organized into

programs for Environmental Biology, Environmental Dis-

eases and Medicine, and Environmental Toxicology. The