National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program
Permanent URI for this collection
The following is a collection of approved, exceptional capstone papers submitted by students to the Duke Environmental Leadership Program. This collection should serve as a guide for formatting and how to compose your paper. The capstone paper is an original, research-based culminating exercise related to NEPA theory or practice. The paper should be based on what you have learned in the courses and your current or future work in the field; case study examples are encouraged. The rationale of the capstone paper is twofold: to demonstrate knowledge of the subject, and to make a contribution to the field. Exemplary papers may be incorporated into future course offerings and compiled for distribution, with authors' permission. Papers are reviewed by a panel of experts in NEPA. Topics must be approved in advance.
Browse
Browsing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program by Subject "NEPA"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Addressing Effects, Affects and Impacts to Human Health in Environmental Documents Responsibilities under NEPA(2013-08-21) Thompson, Sherrill E.The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a comprehensive and far reaching piece of legislation that requires all federal agencies and applicable federal projects to address the quality of the human environment and human health. These requirements are in addition to addressing impacts to the natural environment and other activities that may impact the environment. Evaluation, analysis, public disclosure and stakeholder involvement are key components; that are requirements of the NEPA process. If the federal project is in compliance with NEPA and its statures, all environmental documents must address impacts to human health, if applicable. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is both subtle and complex, the requirements of the law is more extensive than complying with a legal requirement and creating environmental documents. NEPA is both a law with regulations and a process and the law of NEPA has become more complex since its passage. Its foundation is scientific, social, economic, health based, etc. Congress did not envision an administrative law like NEPA becoming as far reaching, with multi-faceted uses to ensure that the federal agencies follow and comply with the processes of NEPA. This paper will attempt to discuss the effects, affects and impacts that government projects and activities might have on human health. These types of projects would require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact State (EIS) to address the significant impacts that the federal government’s projects might have on human health. It is the responsibility of the federal government to take into consideration human health, when planning and implementing federal projects as required by NEPA. These federal projects would be those that are financed by federal funds and/or require a federal permit. From NEPA’s inception the creators of NEPA probably did not include input from health professionals during the formulation of the law in the United States. At that time, members of the health communities probably would not have been able to see the applicability of NEPA to human health either. Running Head: Addressing Effects, Affects, and Impacts to Human Health in Environmental Documents – Responsibilities under NEPAItem Open Access Borderland Management Taskforces and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Liaison Programs: Vehicles for Greater NEPA Public Involvement?(2012-11-20) Koerner, Elaine M.“One of the primary goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to encourage meaningful public input and involvement in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions,” according to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Reaching this goal can be a challenge anywhere within the United States, but in U.S. border communities it can be particularly challenging. Along the southwest border in particular, security concerns too often continue to be pitted against environmental concerns, suggesting a choice is required. Pockets of poverty, language barriers, and the national lack of resolution on immigration issues can divert public attention away from environmental issues. As a result, providing meaningful input into NEPA processes can all too easily become a low priority for the public. The northern border has its own set of challenges. Here, distances between public meeting sites can be vast, and harsh winter conditions in some areas further impede participation at public meetings set up to provide information about federal projects with potential environmental impacts. In addition, given the perceived abundance of undisturbed natural resources, there may be a sense from some that individual proposed federal actions will have a negligible negative effect. Although non-governmental organizations focused on the preservation of particular species such as the grizzly bear along the northern border of Idaho and Washington State continue to gain media attention, overarching concerns such as jobs often continue to trump concerns about potential environmental impacts of proposed federal actions. Two border-specific governmental communication mechanisms have been created in recent years that provide the opportunity to indirectly increase public input into the NEPA process: intergovernmental groups called Borderlands Management Taskforces (BMTFs); and the uniformed personnel within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) who serve as Liaisons to specific components of the stakeholder spectrum. These liaison positions include Public Lands Liaison Agents, Tribal Liaisons, and Border Community Liaisons, as well as more specialized liaison positions such as Rancher Liaison. Both of these communications mechanisms were created primarily to promote intergovernmental collaboration for mutual mission success, leverage resources to the betterment of all participating groups, and resolve problems at the local level. However, their presence in border communities positions them well to also promote communication on a variety of associated developments – including federal actions that trigger NEPA analyses with accompanying public involvement. The discussion that follows will provide more details about each mechanism and explore their broader potential to be harnessed for NEPA public involvement purposes.Item Open Access Circuit-Splitting the Atom: How the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy Reached Different Conclusions on the Need to Consider Hypothetical Terrorist Attacks under NEPA(2014-05-12) Lighty, Ryan K.This Paper examines possible explanations for the differing policies of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which adopted a "Ninth Circuit only" approach, and the Department of Energy (DOE), which adopted a single nationwide policy, in response to similar adverse appellate court rulings from the Ninth Circuit imposing the requirement to consider the possible environmental impacts of terrorist acts under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The discussion begins with a general overview of NEPA and the need to examine "reasonably foreseeable" effects of proposed Federal actions. The Paper then provides a brief overview of Federal courts and the effect of adverse circuit court rulings on Federal agencies. The examination then turns to the relevant "proximate cause" case law on intervening criminal and terrorist acts, reviews the Ninth Circuit rulings imposing the NEPA terrorism requirements, and explains how the NRC’s rejection of the Ninth Circuit approach led to a circuit split. Finally, the analysis explores the various legal and pragmatic considerations that likely led NRC and DOE, despite being similarly situated, to adopt different responses to similar adverse rulings. The author concludes that, notwithstanding the possibility of a future Supreme Court decision or Congressional action to clarify the requirements of NEPA, both approaches are workable and serve the unique interests of the respective agencies.