Managers and regulators are concerned about potential human health effects from exposure on lands contaminated by chemicals and radionuclides. Determining target cleanup levels is partly dependent upon future land use, and potential exposure from human use. This paper provides data from surveys of activity patterns of people attending festivals in four states, located in the vicinity of Department of Energy facilities. There were significant differences in both participation rates, and activity rates as a function of both location and ethnicity that can be used by managers to track exposure, land use, and preferred activities on natural lands. In general, 1) a higher percent of Native Americans engaged in consumptive activities than others, 2) a higher percent of Caucasians engaged in some non-consumptive activities than Native Americans, 3) a higher percentage of Native Americans engaged in activities on sacred grounds, 4) activity rates were generally higher for Native Americans for consumptive activities and religious/cultural than for Caucasians, 5) fishing rates were higher than other consumptive activities, and camping/hiking were higher than other non-con- sumptive activities, and 6) hunting rates were higher in subjects from Idaho than elsewhere. Baseline human use is critical for monitoring potential exposure, and provides the basis for monitoring, risk assessment and future land use, and these data can be used by managers for assessment and management. Tracking changes over time will reflect changing recreational, subsistence, and cultural/religious trends that relate to land use, public perceptions, and exposure.
M. Greenberg, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, D. Kosson, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, et al., “End-State Land Uses, Sustainably Protective Systems, and Risk Management: A Challenge for Remediation and Multigenerational Stewardship,” Remediation, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005, pp. 91-105.
J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, K. Pletnikoff, R. Snigaroff, D. Snigaroff and T. Stamm, “Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation: Ecological Goods and Services vs Subsistence and Tribal Values,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1261-1271.
L. M. Stumpff, “Reweaving the Earth: An Indigenous Perspective on Restoration Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act,” Environmental Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2006, pp. 93-103.
G. Bohnee, J. Mathews, J. Pinkham, A. Smith and J. Stanfill, “Nez Perce Involvement with Solving Environmental Problems: History, Perspectives, Treaty Rights, and Obligations,” In: J. Burger, Ed., Science and Stakeholders: Solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues by Incorporating Resource Agencies, Regulators, Tribes, Industry, and Other Stakeholders, Springer, New York, 2011.
R. A. Efroymson, J. P. Nicolette and G. W. Suter, “A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation or Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites,” ORNL/TM-2003/17, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2003.
S. J. Backman and B. A. Wright, “An Exploratory Study of the Relationship of Attitude and the Perception of Constraints to Hunting,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1993, pp. 1-16.
B. L. Harper, A. D. Harding, T. Waterhous and S. G. Harris, “Traditional Tribal Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Risk Assessment Guidance Manual,” US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-STAR-J1-R831-46, 2008.
S. G. Harris and B. L. Harper, “Using Eco-Cultural Dependency Webs in Risk Assessment and Characterization of Risks to Tribal Health and Cultures,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 91-100.