361 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 1 Environmental Law can be defi ned as those statutes, admin- istrative regulations, executive orders, court decisions and international agreements that pertain to protection of Nature and human beings from the consequences of unwise resource extraction, production or development and the procedural means by which these ‘laws’ can be invoked by citizens and government. Constitutionally, the United States exhibits a federal system: Law making and enforcement power is divided among the Federal government, the fi fty State governments, regional units and local governments according to formulas contained in Federal and State constitutions and statutes. Environmental Law is a complex and delicate set of rela- tionship among various levels of government. For example the Clean Water Act on the federal level establishes the gen- eral framework of water pollution control laws, empower- ing the Federal Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to set federal minimum performance standards for discharges to waterways, distribute grant monies for publicly owned treatment works and perform backup permitting, surveil- lance, and enforcement functions. But, in most cases it is the States that grant discharge permits (which can be stricter than the federal minimum standards), determine the recipi- ents of federal grant funds, monitor discharger compliance and enforce against violators. Water quality management is frequently a function of substate regional planning agen- cies. Moreover, in some areas interstate regional organiza- tions, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, have regulatory authority over dischargers. Finally, most munici- palities possess storm-water and other “public nuisance” ordinances. Because of the multi-level nature of Environmental Law and its administration, there are numerous state, regional and local variations on the generally uniform federal environ- mental legal regimes. Consequently, this article will focus on Federal Environmental Law. Most federal environmental protection statutes are lengthy and complicated documents. When augmented by federal executive orders, administra- tive regulations and judicial interpretations, each federal statutory system would merit an article unto itself. Rather than that, the function of this article is to identify and briefl y describe the major federal environmental protection statutes and to provide the reader with references so that he or she can seek out relevant regulations, orders, and decisions if more information is desired in a particular area. (For each statute mentioned the United States Code citation is given.) 2 The term “Environmental Law” did not come into general usage until the enactment of The National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq. ) in early 1970. However, long before NEPA Congress was occupied with conserving the Nation’s natural resources from reckless despoilation. For example, Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872 and the US Forest Service, in the United States Department of Agriculture, was entrusted with the care of forested public domain lands in 1897. In addition, after World War II Congress began to legislate in the area of pollution control, culminating in the major federal pollution control statutes of the 1970’s. The contemporary body of Federal Environmental Law consists of laws in the conservation and pollution control areas, along with key planning and coordination statutes, such as NEPA. But even more than most fi elds of law, Environmental Law is constantly changing and evolving as the Nation responds to shifting priorities and pressures on resources. Thus, cur- rent information is particularly important when it comes to Environmental Law. 3 In this section major federal environmental protection statues will be discussed under the following headings: Right-to-Know Statutes, Right-to-Sue Statutes, Product-Licensing Statutes; Standard-Setting Statutes; Cleanup-Response Statutes; and Conservation Statutes. RIGHT-TO-KNOW STATUTES NEPA NEPA requires each federal agency that proposes a major federal action which may have a signifi cant effect on the human environment to prepare and circulate—in draft and fi nal form—an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dis- cussing the environmental impact of the proposed action, reasonable alternatives, irretrievable commitments of resources, and the agency’s balance among environmental © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 362 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW protection and economic development, national security and other factors. Federal actions covered by NEPA are not only federal projects (roads, dams, etc.), but also federal licenses, permits, leases, contracts, and research projects that may have signifi cant effects on the environment. NEPA does not mandate particular results: it does not require a federal agency to adopt the least environmentally damaging alter- native. Courts frequently refer to NEPA as an “environmen- tal full disclosure law,” obliging an agency to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of its action. Once the EIS is complete (i.e., the agency makes full disclosure), the political process, not the courts, determines whether the agency will complete the proposed action. In most instances NEPA does guarantee that other federal agencies having expertise in the fi eld, State offi cials and the general public will have an opportunity to formally comment on a proposed federal action before it is undertaken. When federal agen- cies have taken their responsibilities seriously, they have integrated environmental planning into the early stages of project planning, giving good faith consideration to alterna- tives and mitigation measures. However, all too often the EIS becomes a massive, unreadably technical rationaliza- tion of a project chosen for traditional reasons—economics, politics or bureaucratic inertia. Energy Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 Title III of the 1986 amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq. ) established a regulatory program that will require disclosure of information to workers and the general public about the dangers of hazardous chemicals as well as development of emergency response plans for chem- ical emergencies. Emergency response plans will be prepared by local emer- gency planning committees under the supervision of state emergency response commissions. Local commit tees are appointed by state commissions; and each commit tee must include representation from a wide range of community groups, including owners and operators of facilities in the planning area. Plans for responding to chemical emergencies were to have been completed by 1988. Facilities that release extremely hazardous chemicals in amounts over threshold limits must immediately notify the community emergency coordinator and the state commission. Facilities that are required by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act to have “material safety data sheets” (MSDSs) for hazardous chemicals must submit a copy to the local committee, the local fi re department, and the state com- mission. All MSDSs must be made available to the public. In addition, these facilities must prepare and submit detailed “emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms” which describe amounts of hazardous chemicals present at the facility and their approximate locations. Section 313 of CERCLA requires certain facilities to submit to EPA and the host state annual “Toxic Chemical Release Forms” reporting on the total quantity of listed chemicals used on-site and released to the environment— either accidentally or intentionally—through discharges to air, water, and land. RIGHT-TO-SUE STATUTES Citizen Suits Almost every federal environmental protection statute con- tains a provision granting citizens, no matter where they are located, standing to bring suit in federal district court against violators of the statute or against EPA for failure to perform a mandatory duty. No specifi c injury need be alleged by a plaintiff in a statutory citizen suit, but plaintiff must allege that no government agency is effectively enforcing against the defendant. In a citizen suit, a judge may fi ne the defen- dant and award reasonable counsel and expert witness fees to a citizen plaintiff. Judicial Review Under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 701 et seq. ), any “aggrieved person” may sue to obtain judicial review of a fi nal decision made by a federal administrative agency. Potential damage to a person’s interest in a clean and natural environment will confer standing on a plaintiff under this statute. Agency decisions are accorded a strong pre- sumption of correctness by our legal system. Thus, in order to overturn an agency decision, a plaintiff must prove that it confl icts with the agency’s statutory authority, is “arbitrary and capricious”, or violates constitutional safeguards. PRODUCT LICENSING STATUTES Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Under TSCA (15 USC 2601 eq seq. ), EPA is empowered to require the testing of new and existing chemicals that are potentially toxic, and to prohibit or place conditions on the manufacture, distribution, and usage of a chemical if it poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The heart of TSCA is its requirement of a “premanufac- ture notice” (PMN) to EPA by any person who proposes to import, manufacture, or process a new chemical or to intro- duce a signifi cant new use of an existing chemical. Once a PMN is received, EPA must act within one hundred eighty days to regulate or prohibit the manufacture of the chemi- cal. If EPA does not act within one hundred eighty days, the manufacturing process may begin. However, if on the basis of the PMN EPA fi nds that production, use, or dis- posal of the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment, EPA may promulgate “test rules” requiring further testing of health effects, envi- ronmental effects, and chemical fate. If these tests confi rm the existence of an unreasonable risk, EPA may act to limit or prohibit production, use, or disposal. “Reasonableness” in TSCA consists of a “risk-benefi t” analysis in which the © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 363 health and environmental risk is weighed against the social and economic benefi ts of the chemical. As for existing chemicals, TSCA established an “Interagency Testing Committee” (ITC) that screens chem- icals and recommends to EPA existing chemicals that are so potentially dangerous as to deserve further study. The ITC has developed several lists of potentially dangerous chemicals, including a “priority list” and a “suspicious list”. Chemicals on these lists are subject to extensive monitor- ing and reporting requirements with regard to production, release, and exposure data. When a report by a manufac- turer, processor, or distributor indicates that the substance or mixture might present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, EPA may require further tests or act to limit manufacture, use, or disposal of the chemical. Finally, TSCA establishes a framework for regulating certain extraordinarily dangerous chemicals, for example asbestos, TRIS and PCBs. TSCA is one of the federal stat- ues that could be relied upon to regulate products of genetic engineering. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Under FIFRA (7 USC 136 et seq. ), all new pesticides must be registered with EPA and all pesticides registered in the past must be reviewed with regard to potential adverse impacts on public health and the environment. A registration must be approved or renewed unless the pesticide will have “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” EPA is authorized to restrict the use of certain pesticides to particu- lar uses or to certifi ed applicators, order specifi c packaging or labeling requirements, cancel a registration, or suspend the production and distribution of a pesticide. If information disclosed in a pesticide application indi- cates toxicity exceeding EPA “risk criteria,” a presumption against registration arises and the burden of proof shifts to the applicant. States are also authorized to regulate pesti- cides and pesticide applicators. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.) No “food additive”, “color additive”, drug or cosmetic may be sold unless it has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). No FDA approval may be issued if the substance is found to cause cancer in humans or labo- ratory animals. EPA also sets tolerance levels for pesticide residues on raw agricultural products. Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2011 et seq.) A Nuclear Regulatory Commission license must be obtained for the production or distribution of nuclear materials. Separate licenses must be obtained in order to construct or operate a nuclear power plant. The Food and Drug Administration’s Bureau of Radiological Health regulates the uses of nuclear materials in the medical arts, and also regulates radioactivity levels in milk. The Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility for advising on envi- ronmental standards for radioactive materials, and for setting such standards for drinking water (under the Safe Drinking Water Act) and for ambient air and air emission sources (under and Clear Air Act). STANDARD-SETTING STATUTES Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) This Act establishes federal nationwide ambient air qual- ity standards for conventional air pollutants and provides for their attainment by reducing pollution from stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources must meet emis- sions limitations set in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) administered by the States. Mobile sources pollution control is achieved by federal emissions limitations on new motor vehicles and state inspection and maintenance programs plus warranty provisions for vehicles in actual use. The Act also regulates new sources of air pollution, emissions of hazard- ous air pollutants, emissions limitations and transportation control plans in “Nonattainment Areas” (areas where the federal standards are being exceeded) and allowable pollu- tion in “Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration” (PSD) areas where standards are presently being met. Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.) Enacted in 1972 and amended several times since then, this statute sets out a goal of “fi shable/swimmable” waters wher- ever attainable, and attempts to achieve it through (1) a con- struction loan program authorizing federal grants to State revolving loan funds for the construction and rehabilitation of publicly owned treatment works; (2) permit system for point sources of pollution incorporating progressively stricter tech- nology-based effl uent limitations set by industrial subcate- gory; (3) a requirement that publicly owned treatment works achieve the equivalent of secondary treatment; (4) areawide water quality management for the diminution of nonpoint sources of pollution and (5) setting of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) where water quality standards are not achieved. The Act makes it illegal to discharge a pollutant with- out a permit. Most States have assumed administration of the point source permit program from EPA. Also included in the Clean Water Act are provisions dealing with wetlands protection, sludge disposal, estuarine protection and ocean discharge. (Permits for ocean dumping are provided for in the MarineProtection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1401 et seq. ) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are regulated as point sources under the Act. Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f et seq.) Whereas the Clean Water Act regulates ambient water qual- ity, the Safe Drinking Water Act controls the quality of tap water. The Act specifi es procedures for setting maximum © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 364 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW contaminant levels for drinking water provided by public water systems. It also governs underground injection of wastewater and limits federal development programs in areas designated as “sole source aquifers.” Special programs are included for the protection of aquifer recharge areas and areas contiguous to wellheads. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA (40 USC 6901 et seq. ) is the statute that governs the management of hazardous waste in the United States. RCRA’s approach to hazardous waste management consists of 4 major elements: • federal identification of hazardous wastes: • a manifest system of tracing hazardous wastes from generator, to transporter, to treatment, storage, or disposal facility; • federal minimum standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal, enforced through a permit system; and • state implementation of hazardous waste manage- ment programs at least equivalent to the federal program. First enacted in 1976, RCRA was signifi cantly amended in 1984. Under the 1984 amendments the land disposal of hazardous waste, including deep well injection, must be banned unless EPA determines that a particular method of land disposal will be consistent with protecting human health and the environment. A method of land disposal cannot be acceptable unless a petitioner demonstrates that there will be no migration from the land disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous. If a disposability determination is not made within sixty-six months, land disposal of the haz- ardous waste is automatically banned. The 1984 RCRA amendments also prohibited the land- fi lling of noncontainerized liquids, tightened performance standards for existing landfi lls, and established a regulatory program for underground storage tanks. Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 651 et seq.) This statute imposes a duty on employers to furnish each employee with a place of employment that is free of rec- ognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause illness, injury or death. The Department of Labor can promulgate safety and health standards, conduct inspections, issue cita- tions, impose penalties, and require employers to maintain records. Health standards may be expressed as “permissible exposure limits” (PELs) which must be imposed where there is a signifi cant risk to worker health and safety. PELs must be technologically and economically feasible. Consumer Product Safety Act (15 USC 2051 et seq.) Congress, through this Act, created the Consumer Product Safety Commission and authorized it to impose performance standards or packaging and labeling requirements on con- sumer products in order to prevent an “unreasonable risk of injury.” This entails a benefi t-cost analysis before the Commission can impose a restriction on a consumer product. In an extreme case, a hazardous product may be banned from commerce. CLEANUP-RESPONSE STATUTES Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) CERCLA (42 USC 1901 et seq. ), also known as “Superfund,” established an 8.5 billion dollar fund to fi nance cleanup activities at currently operational and abandoned facilities. The Act also contains spill notifi cation provisions covering listed hazardous substances. When a release has occurred, EPA can use fund monies to clean up the site and then proceed against responsible parties for reimbursement, or move against responsible parties in the fi rst instance. CERCLA imposes strict “joint and several” (recovery may be obtained from one or all) liability against (1) current owners or operators of facilities, (2) owners or operators at the time the hazardous substances were released, and (3) generators and transporters of the haz- ardous substances that were ultimately released by the facil- ity. Only innocent purchasers who have made reasonable investigations are insulated from cleanup liability. CERCLA amendments enacted in 1986 have signifi cant bearing on how quickly, and to what extent, superfund sites will be cleaned up. Remedial investigation/feasibility studies for facilities on the National Priority List must be commenced at the follow- ing rate: 275 with in three years; and additional 175 within four years; and an additional 200 within fi ve years; for a total of 650 by 1991. The amendments require EPA to select, to the maximum extent practicable, remedial actions that utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies. A preference is established for reme- dial actions that utilize treatment to permanently and signifi - cantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances. Offsite transport and disposal without treatment is the least preferred option where practicable treatment technologies are available. If the selected remedy does not achieve the preference for treatment, EPA must publish expla- nation. For on-site remedial actions, the amendments require attainment of “legally applicable or relevant and appropri- ate Federal and state standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations” (ARARs), unless such requirements are waived. Maximum contaminant level goals under the Safe Drinking Water Act and water quality standards under the Clean Water Act must be met where relevant and appropriate. Congress’ failure to reauthorize CERCLA has caused a depletion of Superfund so that State cleanup funds are now of primary importance for site remediation. However, since 1990 CERCLA has been amended to provide various incentives for remediation of urban (“Brownfi elds”) contaminated sites. © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 365 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA ’90) Galvanized into action by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA ’90), which integrated and strengthened prior federal law covering liability for and cleanup of oil spills. Modelled on CERCLA, OPA ’90 establishes a billion dollar Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund fi nanced by the imposition of a fi ve cents per barrel tax on oil delivered at the refi nery. Owners and operators of vessels and onshore and offshore facilities are strictly liable for cleanup and natural resource damages, subject to the defenses of (1) act of God, (2) act of war, or (3) negligence of a third party not associated with the owner or operator. Facilities must develop spill prevention, control, and coun- termeasure (SPCC) plans, have them approved by EPA or the Coast Guard, and implement them, or face heavy civil and criminal penalties. Single hull tankers are to be phased out, and licensing and supervision of offi cers and seamen are strengthened. The OPA ’90 explicitly does not preempt state oil spill laws. CONSERVATION STATUTES The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (30 USC 1201 et seq. ) provides extensive federal regulation of pri- vate coal surface mining on private lands and also regulates excavation of coal by strip-mining on public lands. The basic regulatory mechanism of this act is a permit system, to be implemented by the States according to federal standards, with provision for federal enforcement if a state program does not meet federal standards. There are also fl at prohibi- tions on surface mining in environmentally sensitive areas. The Act is administered by the Offi ce of Surface Mining in the Department of Interior. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq. ), originally passed in 1934, requires federal agen- cies proposing water resource development projects, either directly or by permit, to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, with a view towards conserving fi sh and wildlife resources. The reports of the Secretary of the Interior under the Act must include proposed measures for mitigating or compensating damage to wildlife resources resulting from the project. The proposing agency is only required to fully consider the Secretary’s report. The Endangered Species Act (16 USC IS31 et seq. ) requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modifi cation of its critical habitat. The key to the Act’s implementation is mandatory consultation by the proposing agency with the Fish and Wildlife Service. When FWS makes a formal fi nd- ing that the proposed action will violate the Act, and after a good faith effort to fi nd alternatives has failed, an Endangered Species Committee, composed of Federal offi cials and a rep- resentative of the affected States, must balance preservation against development and decide the issue: but the Act weighs the balance in favor of preservation. The National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et seq. ) established the National Register of Historic Places. It requires federal agencies to consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation whenever proposed federal projects might have adverse impacts on historic or archae- ological sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. By regulation, the proposing federal agency must consult a State Historic Preservation Offi cer when deter- mining how its activities will affect historic or archeologi- cal sites. The procedures also require that the SHPO, along with the Advisory Council and the proposing agency, reach written agreement in certain cases on how to mitigate any adverse effects expected from a federal project. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271 et seq. ) was originally enacted in 1968 and has been subsequently amended several times. The statute is jointly administered by the Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service and, when national forests are involved, by the Secretary of Agriculture through the National Forest Service. The Act established “a national wild and scenic rivers system” and defi nes criteria for eligibility under each of the following three classifi cations: wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. The Act provides that “no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license or oth- erwise in the construction of any water resources project that requires a direct adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its administration.” Adjacent federal lands must be managed consistent with the river’s conservation values. The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq. ) provides for federal fi nancial assistance to coastal state gov- ernments for the development of Coastal Zone Management Plans. Coastal Zone Management Plans have as their pri- mary function land-use management for the Coastal Zone to assure the orderly and environmentally sound development of these ecologically sensitive areas. Under the Act, federal or federally assisted or licensed projects are required to be approved by the coastal state as consistent with an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. At the federal level the Coastal Zone Management Program is administered by the Offi ce of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. Sixty-one percent of all federal lands, some 470 million acres, is administered by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. The statute under which BLM admin- isters the national resource lands is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 USC 1701 et seq. ). Among the Act’s declared policies is that public lands should be retained in federal ownership unless disposal will serve the national interest. In pursuit of this policy, all public lands and resources are to be inventories periodically: all previ- ous land classifi cations are to be reviewed; and all land use decisions are to be the result of a land-use planning process. When resources or land are to be disposed of or utilized, effort must be made to assure a fair market value return © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 366 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW to the United States. Guidelines for land-use planning and management must assure attainment of multiple-use and sustained yield. Like most federal conservation statutes, the Act incorporates the Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act (16 USC 528 et seq.). Most important for our purposes, plan- ning and management activities are to be undertaken so as to protect the environmental, ecological, scientifi c, scenic, historical, air, atmospheric and water resource values of the public domain. Areas of critical environmental concern are to be identifi ed and protected through regulation and plan- ning as soon as possible. Land-use plans must be consistent with all state and federal pollution control statutes. The second largest administrator of public lands is the US Forest Service, which controls the use of over 187 million acres dispersed throughout the United States. Consolidation and clarifi cation of the FS mission were accomplished by enactment of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and its subsequent amendment by the National Forest Management Act (16 USC 16 et seq. ). These Acts, like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, established a comprehensive planning structure for the management of the national forest system in general as well as particular for- ests. Unit plans must integrate both economic and environ- mental considerations. The Act declares that each unit plan should protect the environment, provide for restocking, and perpetuate multiple-use and sustained yield. Clearcutting is prohibited unless it is determined to be the best means of meeting the objectives of the unit plan. If clearcutting is chosen, efforts must be made to mitigate its effects. Other standards in the Act prevent premature harvesting of trees unless such harvesting is compatible with other multiple uses of the forest. While developing unit plans, lands unsuit- able for timber production are to be identifi ed and timber production from such lands is to be prohibited for a period of ten years. National Forest Lands and other federal lands can be withdrawn from logging if Congress designates them as Wilderness Areas under the Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq. ). These lands must be administered to preserve wil- derness character and must be devoted to scenic, historic, recreational, and similar uses. As for mining on federal lands, the antiquated General Mining Act of 1872 (30 USC 21) governing the location and patenting of claims to hardrock minerals, has not provided an adequate basis for mitigating the environmental abuses of hardrock mining. However, where energy resources are concerned, environmental protection is one factor to be considered in awarding mineral leases under the following statutes: Mineral Leasing Act (30 USC 181 et seq. ); The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 USC 1331 et seq. ); Multiple Mineral Development Act (30 USC 521 et seq. ); The Geothermal Steam Act (30 USC 1001 et seq. ); and The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments (30 USC 201 et seq. ). A number of federal transportation statutes deal with conservation of natural resources. Under both the Federal- Aid Highway Act (23 USC 101 et seq. ) and the Urban Mass Transit Act (49 USC 1601 et seq. ) the Secretary of Transportation cannot approve a transportation project which encroaches upon park land, wildlife refuges or historic sites unless there is “no feasible and prudent alternative” and the “program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such areas.” Highway planning must include environmental factors and be consistent with State transportation plans pre- pared under the Clean Air Act. The conservation of Alaska’s vast natural resources has been a high priority of conservationists for many years. In 1978 President Carter, under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 USC 431 et seq. ), designated 17 National Monuments encompassing 56 million acres of Alaskan land. The Antiquities Act empowers the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain federally owned lands as National Monuments, including “historic landmarks, historic and pre- historic structures and other objects of historic or scientifi c interest.” Once a designations has been made, the Secretary can prohibit any activity that would adversely affect the site. An additional 50 million acres of land in Alaska were with- drawn for wildlife refuges under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Finally, in late 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ratifying most of the previous executive withdrawals. America’s National parks have been referred to as its “Crown Jewels.” The National Park Service was created in 1916 (16 USC 1 et seq. ) to “promote and regulate the use of National Parks, monuments and reservations and to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Parks are created by individual Congressional enactments, so that one must look to the individual organic acts in order to understand the legal restrictions applicable to each park. However, mining in National Parks was severely restricted by the National Park Service Mining Activity Act (16 USC 1901 et seq. ). NPS also administers the Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems and the National Trails System (16 USC 1241 et seq. ). Financing for purchases of National Park Lands has frequently been provided by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 USC 460 et seq. ). National Wildlife Refuges are administered under the National Wildlife Refuges System Administration Act (16 USC 668dd et seq. ). Hunting, fi shing, and other public recreation may be permitted in National Wildlife Refuges if they are compatible with the conservation purpose of the refuge. Finally, there is extensive federal legislation relating to the protection of particular wildlife species, including habitat acquisition programs. Some of these statutes are the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC 1361 et seq. ); the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (16 USC 1331 et seq. ); the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq. ); the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (16 USC 718 et seq. ); and the Water Bank Act (16 USC 1301 et seq. ). 4 In recent years, international environmental law has bur- geoned to the degree that it is now one of the most active © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 367 areas in the fi eld. The international community has recog- nized that environmental threats are frequently transnational, multinational, regional or even global in scope. As a result, international agreements (treaties, conventions and proto- cols) have entered into effect governing activities involving diverse environmental issues, such as biodiversity (e.g., The Convention on Biological Diversity), climate change, ozone depletion (e.g., the “Montreal Protocol”), the protection of Antarctica, transboundary disposal of hazardous wastes, vessel-based water pollution and ocean dumping, trans- boundary air and water pollution, conservation of whales and other marine resources, trade in endangered species and nuclear weapons testing. International agreements, unlike most national environ- mental laws, are essentially voluntary in nature: that is, they cannot be enforced by an international legislature, court system or police force. Such agreements can only be enforced by the nations that consent to be bound by a particular international compact. However, political methods, for exam- ple, international exposure of violating nations and potential trade boycotts, are often successful in achieving compliance by nations that either do not adopt international agreements or else adopt them and systematically violate their provisions. REFERENCES 1. Plater, G. Z. B., Abrams, R., Goldfarb, W., Graham, R. L., Heingerling, L. and Wisch, D. L., Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law and Society. 3 rd Edition. New York, NY. Aspen Publishers. 2004. 2. Government Institutes, Inc., Environmental Law Handbook, 17th Edi- tion, Rockville, MD. 2003. 3. Environmental Law Institute, Environmental Law Reporter. 4. Bureau of National Affairs, Environment Reporter. 5. Guruswamy, L. D. and Hendricks, B. R., International Environmental Law. St. Paul, MN. West Publishing Co. 1997. WILLIAM GOLDFARB Rutgers University © 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC . headings: Right-to-Know Statutes, Right-to-Sue Statutes, Product-Licensing Statutes; Standard-Setting Statutes; Cleanup-Response Statutes; and Conservation Statutes. RIGHT-TO-KNOW STATUTES. possess storm-water and other “public nuisance” ordinances. Because of the multi-level nature of Environmental Law and its administration, there are numerous state, regional and local variations. administered by the Of ce of Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. Sixty-one percent of all federal lands, some 470 million