🚀 go-pugleaf

In "Strengthening the EIS" "xena" writes:

>    The division into "primary" and "secondary", which allows the
>dismissal of impacts that are either indirect or distant in space or
>time, arises because neither the NEPA or the CEQ Guidelines are
>specific as to what the bounds of space and time should be on the
>impacts to be considered. The way to cure this defect would be to
>explicitly state the geographic area and the period of time to be
>included in the analysis. The EIS should require, as a default,
>consideration of significant possible impacts on the entire Earth, for
>a period of at least 100 years into the future, and should require
>justification for any lesser scope.

This is totally inadequate. Most conservation biologists think that a
very minimal goal would be a 95% probability of survival of populations
of umbrella species (such as larger predators, bison, etc) for 1000 years. 
Management plans to achieve at least this much survival potential in a 
wilderness recovery system should be put into effect within a decade or 
so. The EIS should require, as a bare minimum, that impacts be compatible 
with that management goal.

This is the very barest minimum, and a much more reasonable and ethical
goal would be the restoration of the evolutionary potential, to the extent
possible, of all native species within 200 years. Management plans to achieve 
that should be developed over the next few decades and the initial recovery 
system evolved in the direction of the 2200 AD target. EISs should likewise 
have an evolving impact target, placed a few decades ahead of the current 
state of the wilderness recovery system.

-------------
Alan McGowen