Nez Perce Analysis of the Canyon Disposition Initiative Hanford Site, Washington

In 2002, the Nez Perce Tribe, through its Environmental Restoration & Waste Management Program (ERWM), received a Citizen’s Monitoring and Technical Assistance grant (MTA), which set to analyze the Canyon Disposition Initiative (CDI) 221-U Facility (U Plant) decision-making process. The ERWM analysis focused on the technical data being utilized by the Tri-Party agencies (Department of Energy, State of Washington-Department of Ecology, and the Environmental Protection Agency) in making its recommendations for the CDI. In 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Record of Decision (ROD), which presented the selected final remedial action chosen for the 221-U Facility (U Plant). This document finalized the selected alternative chosen by the Department of Energy. The Hanford area has long been a common use area by Columbia River Plateau tribes, due to its central location on the Columbia near the confluences of the Snake and Yakima rivers. This site, through the Nez Perce Treaty of 1855, is a “usual and accustomed” (U & A) area, where the Nez Perce retained its right and privilege to hunt, fish, and gather within those U & A areas. Thus, the Nez Perce Tribe is involved in the activities that occur on the Hanford site, which has been reaffirmed through federal actions and laws in the area. This research was completed money allocated during Round 4 of the Citizens’ Monitoring and Technical Assessment Fund (MTA Fund). Clark University was named conservator of these works. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at [email protected]://commons.clarku.edu/nez/1000/thumbnail.jp

USING SOCIAL GOALS TO EVALUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS

The need to increase public participation in environmental decision-making is receiving renewed attention at all levels of government. However, there are few approaches to evaluating these processes that address the question: What are we getting from public participation? This article proposes one way to answer this question using a framework that evaluates the outcomes of participatory processes using a set of "social" goals. These social goals are: 1) educating the public; 2) incorporating public values, assumptions, and preferences into decision making; 3) increasing the substantive quality of decisions; 4) fostering trust in institutions; 5) reducing conflict; and 6) making decisions cost-effectively. Although these goals apply to public participation writ large, there are a limited number of formalized mechanisms available to public agencies for involving the public. The article matches these six social goals to the participatory mechanisms by which they might be achieved. It concludes with areas for further research suggested by the framework. Copyright 1999 by The Policy Studies Organization.