Frank DiSanza and Don Elle
USDOE
Earle Dixon
CAB
Jim Henderson
BN
Paul Richitt
UNLV
Carrie Stewart
PAI
ABSTRACT
The Nevada Operations Office recently completed a site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and off-site locations within the state of Nevada. This EIS was two years in the development and cost about 10 million dollars to produce. Several innovative approaches were taken in the areas of public participation. This paper presents the approaches utilized and the results in the following subject areas:
The overall conclusion is that meaningful public participation takes time, innovation, hard work, and commitment.
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) has recently completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and off-site locations within the state of Nevada. Public participation was a significant portion of that effort during the preparation of the EIS and several innovative approaches were taken in the area of public participation. This paper discusses the public participation processes, its impact on policy and decision making, the barriers to communication, and identifies the successes and the lessons learned.
BACKGROUND
To put the paper in perspective, the following sections give some basic information about the NTS, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the NTS EIS.
NEVADA TEST SITE
The NTS, a unique national resource managed by the DOE/NV, is about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The 1,350 square-mile site features desert and mountainous terrain and is larger than the state of Rhode Island, making it one of the largest secured areas in the United States. The NTS is in a remote and arid region, surrounded by federal installations with strictly controlled access, and public lands that are not open to public entry. The NTS has served the nation as the location for the development and testing of nuclear explosive devices and weapons. More than 900 nuclear tests have been conducted since the 1950s, both in the air and underground. A moratorium on testing has been in place since 1992.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
Major changes in the attitude of the Nation toward the state of the environment began in 1970. On January 1, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed the NEPA. This federal law establishes the policy that all actions of the federal government that have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment would have to be evaluated, with a report provided to the government decision maker. An important element of this law, but one that is sometimes overlooked, is that NEPA requires involving the public in the study and analysis that would be provided to the federal decision maker. This was the first of many environmental laws that included specific provisions for public/citizen involvement. These new laws required that federal agencies undertake efforts to include the public in ways that went beyond merely satisfying the letter of the law. There was a new urgency to include the public in the federal process in a timely and meaningful manner before decisions are made.
NEVADA TEST SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The DOE/NV manages the NTS and off-site locations in Nevada and their resources in a way that meets evolving DOE missions and responds to the concerns of affected and interested individuals and agencies. The DOE prepared an EIS regarding these resources according to the NEPA of 1969.
The EIS analyzed the impacts from DOE programs at the following sites in Nevada: the NTS, Tonopah Test Range, portions of the Nellis Air Force Range Complex, Central Nevada Test Area, and Project Shoal Area. These programs include ongoing activities for the stewardship of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, managing radioactive waste, and environmental restoration. Also examined were newer programs such as the proposed Solar Enterprise Zone facilities at the NTS and three additional sites in southern Nevada. The EIS identified 4 alternatives and addressed 13 resource components. Because of the expansive scope and analysis, the EIS contains a large volume of information and represents a very complex analytical process.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ISSUES
In regard to the NTS, both the overall public participation program and the activities conducted for the NTS EIS have been somewhat less successful than the agency has desired. There may be several reasons for this, including the low credibility currently given to the DOE by some members of the public. The NTS is unique and its environmental status is extremely complex and difficult to understand by the public. Combine this complexity with the problems created by Nevada' s population distribution and one can immediately perceive the inherent difficulties in achieving full stakeholder participation.
The public generally perceives that the government, and in this case the DOE in particular, really does not care what the public says. This feeling is based on public opinion related to past nuclear testing and to Yucca Mountain. The Congress has specifically decided that Yucca Mountain is the only site to be studied for the repositing of high-level nuclear waste. This decision was made despite strong concerns expressed by Nevadans. The Yucca Mountain Project was not addressed in the NTS EIS. However, the public frequently associated these two programs and criticized the EIS as being incomplete. The separation of personal or political agendas regarding the Yucca Mountain issue from NTS is difficult. Encouraging meaning public participation under these circumstances alone is a challenge.
The complexity of the EIS presented a significant challenge in terms of communication with members of the public. The NTS EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of four possible land-use alternatives for the NTS, the Tonopah Test Range, and formerly operated DOE sites in the state of Nevada to include: the Project Shoal Area, the Central Nevada Test Area, and portions of the Nellis Air Force Range Complex. Three additional sites in Nevada--Altered Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley--are evaluated for co-location of solar energy production facilities. The four alternatives include: Continue Current Operations (No Action); Discontinue Operations; Expanded Use; and, Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands. Because every resource needs to be evaluated under each alternative at each location, the more alternatives and locations there are, the more complex and thick the EIS becomes. The NTS EIS is very complex as reflected in the document's thickness (about 5 Þ inches). The future-use programs discussed in the EIS represent a unique opportunity to view the NTS as a real-time laboratory, able in one location to represent a microcosm of environmental issues, ranging from research and development, testing, restoration to waste management. Communicating this uniqueness to a public at times more interested in addressing past problems is also a challenge.
Finally, the population distribution in Nevada also created some challenges. Nevada has two major population centers at opposite ends of the state with the transportation corridors mostly serving these primary population centers. The remainder of the population resides in small, rural areas distributed across the state. In addition, more than 80 percent of the state land resources are controlled by the federal government.
The DOE responded to these challenges in a proactive manner in an effort to increase the level of public participation and insure that DOE went beyond the letter of the law in an attempt to solicit meaningful public participation. The following sections describe some of those activities and their impact on decisions.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
As noted above, the NTS EIS is a very complex document representing a very complex situation. The initial approaches to the document demonstrated that because of the many different issues that could potentially be included, the public should be involved from the very start. The DOE decided to publish their proposed plan for the EIS, the Implementation Plan, and to seek comments from the public at the beginning of the process in an effort to direct their resources to include public concerns.
It is not a regulatory or DOE requirement that the agency solicit public comments regarding an Implementation Plan. However, the NTS EIS Management Team, in an attempt to expand public involvement and at the request of stakeholders, such as the Community Advisory Board (CAB), distributed the Draft Implementation Plan for the NTS EIS to interested parties. The comment period lasted 90 days. During those three months, the DOE/N, with the assistance of contractor support, presented information regarding the Implementation Plan in five public meetings. At the completion of the 90-day comment period, comments were compiled and revisions to the document were made. These comments helped define the alternatives selected for analysis and provided a preview of the major issues.
TRANSPORTATION MEETINGS
During the NTS EIS public scoping meetings, transportation was identified as a major concern ranking second behind the issue of alternative definitive. One of the reasons that transportation is such an overwhelming issue in Nevada is the transportation associated with the potential selection of Nevada for either storage or disposal of high level radioactive waste. Given the public' s comments during the scoping process, DOE decided to document the results of an ongoing Transportation Study as an appendix to the NTS EIS. The DOE received comments from the public during a series of transportation meetings held with federal agencies, and state and local government organizations. The DOE' s strategy was to obtain recommendations from the general public, other federal agencies, and state and local government organizations, that would make transportation of low-level waste more acceptable and mitigate potential impacts.
In order to establish a broad base of stakeholders, the DOE contacted a wide range of potential stakeholders and held a transportation meeting with what became known as the "Big Group." This meeting was held in November 1994 to elicit further comments on specific issues and concerns to be included in the Transportation Study. The meeting was attended primarily by representatives of the state, surrounding counties, and cities near the NTS. Additional "one-on-one" meetings with the DOE/NV transportation team followed the November meeting. These meetings offered an opportunity for specific concerns to be heard, and for the DOE/NV technical experts to answer questions in an informal setting.
At an April 1995 meeting, in addition to providing a Transportation Study status update, a session without the DOE representatives was held and stakeholders identified the positives and negatives associated with the development and content of the DOE/NV's Draft Transportation Study. The stakeholders requested that a risk working group be formally established to review the risk assessment protocol associated with the Transportation Study being developed for the NTS EIS. The Transportation Protocol Working Group was established for this purpose. This group consists of representatives from state and local governments and from the CAB who expressed an interest in reviewing and understanding the technical details of the transportation risk analysis.
The stakeholder Transportation Protocol Working Group met to identify, prioritize, and understand local issues and concerns associated with the transportation of low-level waste to the NTS, resulting in the Transportation Protocol Working Group' s recommendations which were submitted to the DOE as comments on the Draft NTS EIS. The Transportation Protocol Working Group will continue to meet with the DOE at a minimum of three times a year to discuss issues. This "teaming" approach has been well accepted by those non-DOE study participants and has resulted in the DOE accepting the majority of the recommendations submitted by the Transportation Protocol Working Group. The DOE' s commitment to follow through on these recommendations is documented in the NTS EIS Record of Decision and Mitigation Action Plan.
RURAL MEETINGS
During the NTS EIS development process, several types of public meetings were conducted. Public meetings were held to solicit comments regarding the scope of the EIS, the NTS EIS Implementation Plan, and the Draft NTS EIS.
The DOE/NV would have been in compliance with NEPA requirements if they had held public meetings in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Those locations would have provided a forum for solicitation of public comments from southern and northern Nevada. The DOE/NV, in an attempt to increase stakeholder involvement, held meetings in St. George, Utah; and Caliente, Tonopah, Boulder City, Fallon, Pahrurnp, Carson City, Henderson, and North Las Vegas, Nevada, in addition to the meetings in Las Vegas and Reno.
The additional locations of EIS public meetings in rural communities gave people that would normally not be able to travel to Las Vegas or Reno an opportunity for involvement in the NTS EIS. Although attendance in some rural communities was minimal, many relevant and important comments were received. These comments included positive comments of support for the NTS and concerns of economic impacts from reduced NTS activity.
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD PARTICIPATION
The CAB for NTS programs is a formal volunteer organization comprised of interested individuals who provide informed advice and recommendations to the DOE Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program.
This southern Nevada-based board was formed in 1994 to review and advise the DOE on environmental restoration and waste management activities at the NTS. The board' s establishment reflected a growing public demand to form site-specific advisory boards at local sites throughout. the DOE complex to help deal with issues affecting local citizens.
One of the most important tasks of the CAB was to provide review and written comment on the Draft NTS EIS to the DOE. Since the CAB's official inception in June 1994, approximately 18 diverse board members eagerly awaited the arrival of the Draft NTS EIS for public comment {January 1996). Devising a process to review the EIS given the document's size and complexity, the 90-day public comment period, and the procedural hurdles of obtaining a consensus in a group format were challenges to the board. The CAB EIS Committee was assigned the task of organizing the board members into a team that would provide written review and comment on the Draft NTS EIS, and include other public input toward this important document.
The CAB EIS Committee and the CAB Technical Advisor helped to assemble and synthesize the board' s comments into tabular form. The committee decided to organize the board members into primarily four review teams, one for each of the four alternatives described in the Draft NTS EIS. A table of key topical elements was employed by each alternative committee to serve as a starting point for review of each EIS alternative. A comment matrix format was developed to organize the written response of the CAB, and to facilitate review by the DOE. Original comments were also attached to the final document for reference in case a particular point or detail was lost during the summarization. The CAB officially approved the EIS Comment Document (75 pages) and presented it to the DOE at the May 1, 1996, meeting, two days prior to the close of the public comment period of May 3, 1996.
PARTNERING WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM
The Environmental Studies Program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) proposed a concept called Community OutReach and Education (CORE). It was conceived as an approach to solicit comments regarding the NTS EIS from the isolated, small rural populations in Nevada. The goals of the CORE were to provide education on the NTS EIS to a selected group of people, establish and provide liaison services between the public and DOE, and host public meetings with the DOE to obtain comments on the EIS.
Previous studies had indicated that the public attaches neutrality and high trust in universities and university researchers, especially those in their own communities. These institutions are perceived as unbiased, credible, and financially independent from the DOE. This was the initial premise for why the UNLV might be better able to seek and obtain more meaningful participation from the rural public. A second consideration of the CORE Program stemmed from the need for the small rural community to trust the information presenter as the on-site host of the public meetings. Finally, the CORE needed to prepare the communities to choose between participating and not participating in the NTS EIS review process.
The CORE Program selected 15 people from Nevada's rural counties to participate. The individuals were public officials and private citizens that have been active in related issues and well known in their respective communities. These persons attended a two-day seminar in Las Vegas. The CORE staff prepared special materials for the seminar, which included a history of the NTS, a history and discussion of the NEPA, and a detailed discussion of the NTS EIS. It was the intent of the CORE to have these participants return to their communities, inform their neighbors, and advertise the upcoming public meetings in their communities. The CORE concept was to have the trained, local individual host the public meeting with support from the UNLV staff and with technical presentations from the experts at the DOE. This approach was intended to build on the need for the public to have trust in the process and the people involved.
The four UNLV CORE meetings were held in Boulder City, Caliente, Tonopah, and North Las Vegas. The number of attendees varied widely, from one person plus two of the trained facilitators in Caliente to 20+ attendees at the North Las Vegas meeting. Interestingly, the CORE approach was originally intended to reach the small rural community by vesting one of their own with the information and opportunity to lead. It was felt that this type of "trusted neighbor" approach would be difficult to apply to a larger urban area. The results of the various meetings would suggest that the approach may be applicable to an urban area, if one were to select smaller subdivisions or neighborhoods.
Another putative measure of the CORE approach's success in reaching the interested public can be examined by looking at the types of comments provided at the meetings. For example, at the Caliente meeting there was only one member of the public; however, the host was one of the participants and he produced several in-depth and pertinent comments and suggestions regarding future uses of the NTS. At the Tonopah meeting, more than 20 people attended, along with. 7 of the trained facilitators. This meeting presented the broadest array of public interest and concerns of any of the meetings. The attendees represented five Nevada counties and one California county.
Each participant was requested to comment on the CORE seminar, CORE materials and presentations, and the meetings. Most of the participants' comments were positive and recommended that this type of approach be considered for other planned government activities. It appears that the CORE concept provided a better level of knowledge upon which the public could base their comments. From this perspective, the CORE method offers an alternate approach to obtaining informed public involvement than the more traditional processes of notices and hearings..
COORDINATION WITH THE STATE OF NEVADA
Coordination with the state of Nevada was accomplished through the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse acts as the central contact point and reference source for state agencies. The clearinghouse was used to ensure that all the different state organizations interested in the NTS EIS were notified of DOE/NV activities. Meetings were held regularly during the development of the EIS to provide progress updates and give state agencies insight into the EIS. The meeting format was informal with the DOE giving a short status presentation on developing the document and the state providing comments followed by general discussions on a variety of EIS topics. Later meetings were also used to review written comments submitted by the state and discuss proposed resolutions.
NATIVE AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT
Although the inclusion of indian writers in an EIS had never been undertaken by the DOE, past DOE/NV consultations with the 17 members of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) provided the foundation of knowledge and trust that made the Indian EIS Writing Team possible. The CGTO appointed an American Indian writing team that prepared text for direct inclusion in the NTS EIS under the supervision of the DOE/NV. The American Indian writing team produced relevant text for the EIS in a timely manner, which in turn was printed as Appendix G of the EIS. The DOE/NV compensated the Indian writers for their services and travel expenses, and provided the Indian writers with sufficient funding, technical assistance, and resources needed to write the Native American perspective for the EIS.
Two factors directly affecting the quantity and quality of Indian participation were: 1) the time permitted for their involvement and 2) the confidentiality level that could be provided to protect Native American cultural resources. Because of the tight schedule for the overall project the schedule imposed on the Native American writers was difficult. In addition, time is needed to understand the proposed actions and to learn what rules govern the EIS development so that knowledgeable tribal members can be selected to participate, and sufficient time can be donated for the identification and evaluation of potentially impacted resources. Meaningful involvement and confidentiality of information regarding sacred places and natural resources used in ceremonies are important to Indian people. Indian people want the assurance that sharing culturally sensitive information with the DOE will provide more protection than threats to cultural resources.
Training of the Indian writing team by the EIS team was necessary so that Indian EIS text would be produced under common assumptions and with similar quality controls. One of the most challenging tasks for both the American Indian writers and the DOE scientists was learning about each other' s frame of reference. To achieve this goal, scientific conclusions and data were explained in a way that was responsive to the needs of the Indian writers. Weekend sessions were held at the NTS to facilitate this communication process.
The DOE has taken a highly positive step toward recognizing Indian concerns and maintaining a government-to-government relationship by welcoming and encouraging the involvement of the CGTO and American Indian writers in the preparation of the NTS EIS.
ADVERTISING
Regulations and DOE orders require that all public meetings be announced at least 14 days in advance in a Federal Register Notice. The DOE/NV went several steps further by not only announcing the NTS EIS public meetings in the Federal Register, but by also announcing the meetings in newspapers and on radio and television.
Newspaper announcements were published in both large, daily circulation papers, and small, local weekly papers. Besides an announcement on the day of the meeting, the announcements typically appeared in the newspapers 1, 2, and 14 days before the meeting.
Radio advertisements and public service announcements for the NTS EIS were broadcast several days before the public meeting and the day of the meeting. The meetings were also announced in unpaid news releases and included in the DOE/NV Public Participation Calendar
INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH A SINGLE CONSISTENT DOE INTERACTIVE VOICE
In the past, most public meetings implemented a formal format that involved a panel of people discussing different aspects of the project. The panel was typically seated at tables that were set apart from the audience. The DOE/NV tried a new approach to public meetings when they presented information regarding the NTS EIS to concerned citizens. The presenter at all the public meetings for the NTS EIS was always the same DOE representative. The DOE representative presented the information to the public while standing directly in front of the first row of seats. His close proximity to the audience promoted an atmosphere of informality, friendliness, and trust. The DOE representative also attempted to answer general questions about the NTS and the DOE although many were outside the scope of the EIS. He also knew when to just nod and politely say "Thank you for your comment."
The consistent appearance of the same DOE representative as the presenter at the Draft Implementation Plan, Scoping, Draft NTS EIS, and CORE public meetings resulted in consistent dissemination of information. In addition, the presence of the same DOE representative at all the meetings resulted in a sense of familiarity and trust by the public. Members of the public felt comfortable approaching the DOE representative to discuss specific aspects of the NTS EIS.
In addition, subject area experts were on hand to provide in-depth responses to technical questions. These experts, as well as the DOE representative, were available for one-on-one discussion with the public before and after the meetings and during breaks.
INTERNET, E-MAIL, AND 1-800 NUMBER ACCESS
Internet, e-mail, and 1-800 number access to the NTS EIS were provided. An e-mall address and 1-800 number were provided to accept public comments on the Draft EIS. Press releases were placed on the DOE/NV Home Page. No public comments were received by e-mall. The 1-800 number and mail system were much more prevalently used by the public.
CONCLUSIONS
There are several conclusions to be drawn about what approaches to public involvement really work The overall conclusion is that meaningful public involvement is difficult to achieve and takes time, innovation, hard work, and commitment.
Generally, the public will get involved and work to influence or change an agencies proposed action when ' they perceive that they will either gain or lose financially, environmentally, or socially. For example, transportation of low level waste to the NTS is perceived to have human health effects; therefore, the public expressed concerns during the scoping process and stayed involved during the Transportation Study.
Non-participation by the public may stem from several reasons. There may be the feeling that the decision cannot be influenced by their participation. One of the CORE participants commented that they were convinced that the public "just didn't care" and that this was just a waste of time and effort. While this may be a true statement regarding the choice of the public to ignore the process, the more important question is whether that choice was exercised based upon rational ignorance, lack of information, fear of the unknown, lack of trust, or lack of concern. The public may feel that the issues do not apply to them or do not substantially affect their lives. They simply may not understand the issues that are being considered. They may view the entire process as not being viable nor credible and a total waste of time. Remember, the most important consideration is that if the process is deemed as not being credible, any resulting policy will not be viewed as legitimate.
If the public is well informed about a topic and proactive efforts are undertaken to involve them in the decision-making process, one of two results can be expected. First, the informed and educated public can rationally decide that the issue is not important enough for them to devote time and effort. This is known as "rational ignorance." Or, second, the public may decide that the issue is important and may seek to participate to whatever level they deem adequate. In addition, the active participation. (education) of the public, combined with a better understanding by this educated public of the activities planned, results in comments that are relevant, and meaningful rather than comments that are just negative and non-specific. Although this may result in questions that are more difficult to resolve, they are, in may cases, the questions that need to be asked. In either case, the major premise behind public participation will be served well, that is, to include and consider the public' s concerns.
* Work supported by the U. S. Department of Energy
Neveda Operations Office under Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718
By
acceptance of this article, the publisher and/or recipient acknowledges the U.
S. Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in and to
any copyright covering the article.