Facilitation of Stakeholder Input in the National Environmental Policy Act Process
Abstract
Use of effective communication techniques can greatly facilitate the process of receiving
stakeholder input.
Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA)
offers a chance for members of the public to be involved in the Federal agency decision
making
process. It requires a federal agency to consider the impacts of their undertaking
on many
resources areas to include social, cultural, economic and natural environments. Regulation
for
implementing NEPA Section 102(2) is provided in the Council on Environmental Quality’s
(CEQ’s) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 1500
(40 CFR
1500). CEQ’s regulation at 40 CFR 1500.2(d) requires federal agencies to encourage
and
facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.
In
addition to being mandated by federal regulation, these interactions can be beneficial
to the
preparing agency during the gathering and assessing information phase of the federal
action.
This paper looks at: the role and importance of stakeholder interactions and input,
the potential
benefits of information exchanges, and various techniques to enhance communication
among the
participating stakeholders. To illustrate these points, real world examples are presented.
Additionally, how current and future environmental reviews can benefit from using
these
techniques, throughout the NEPA process.
Type
ReportPermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9562Citation
Trefethen, Jean A. (2015). Facilitation of Stakeholder Input in the National Environmental Policy Act Process.
Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/9562.Collections
More Info
Show full item record
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Rights for Collection: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Education and Certificate Program Capstone Papers
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info