Overview The final project for this course is an open -book exam consisting of two questions.

Overview

The final project for this course is an

open

-book exam

consisting of two questions. To answer these questions, y

ou may utilize materials used in

class as well as your class notes and outlines. You are permitted to use online resources to look up statutory provisions and

case law identified in

class,

but

it is not necessary to use

online resources

to complete the exa

m.

length requirements for this exam

, but you must adhere to the following guidelines

:

•

Cite your

references

for s

tatutes, case law, and readings

. Follow APA

style for citations. N

ote

that

the

scenario

may cover

multiple

environmental statutes

; take each issue separately by

identifying the issue

and stating the statutes and case law that apply to

the issue

.

•

Provide an analysis that utilizes the facts, statutes

, and case law to support your argument

.

•

State what outcome should

or

should not happen (and why)

, supported by law and facts and based on the call of the question.

Clarity is important

, s o you should organize your answers before you begin writing.

Unfocused or off

-topic writing is

unlikely to be rewarded, and

incorrect material will be penalized. If there is any informatio

n that is not stated in a

question

but is needed to properly answer the question

, be

sure to say what the information is

and why it is needed. Do not assume facts that are not stated in the question.

You may use any standard abbreviation

s used in this course

(e.g.

, CAA, CWA, NEPA, ESA, and

NAAQ

S). The abbreviation EPA refers to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency in the exam.

Outcomes

In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes:

•

Spot facts that trigger the requirements of major federal environmental statutes and their implementing regulations in the Un

ited States

•

Predict

environmental law and policy outcomes based on structural and functional features of the political system in which

environmental laws and policies are made and implemented in the United States

•

Identify viable strategies for influencing environmental law an

d policy outcomes based on structural and functional features of the

political system in which environmental laws and policies are made and implemented in the United States

•

Reach a defensible conclusion about the extent to which current federal environment

al laws and policies are sufficient to enable the

United States to achieve sustainability

•

Reach a defensible conclusion about the extent to which the U.S. political system lends itself to remedying any insufficiencies of current

federal environmental laws and policies in the above regard

Prompt

Submit your responses to the questions below

in a single document, formatted according to the guidelines described in the Final Project Rubric

section.

Question One

Over the past

15

years, snowmobile use in Jellyst

one National Park has gradually increased. Last year, an average of 1

,800 snowmobiles entered

the park each day, mo

stly in unsupervised groups of one or two. A network of 180 miles of roads and trails was groomed nightly, but

snowmobiles were not restricte

d to those trails. Snowmobiles use internal combustion engines, which produce air pollution and noise

and can

frighten wildlife. There is also some evidence that groomed trails alter the behavior and travel patterns of several species,

including the

Jellys

tone

bison. However, the expansion of snowmobile use has brought significant tourist dollars to the local community in the winter,

traditionally a very slow season.

Until now, the p

ark has not regulated snowmobile use. This year, the p

ark decided to formally evaluate snowmobile use

. The

park

supervisor

announced the p

ark's intention to strike a workable balance between facilitating public access to the p

ark and protecting its resources.

After preparing an

environmental

assessment (EA), the

park decided to

limit the number of individual snowmobiles allowed to enter the p

ark to

900 per day

and

to

require that snowmobiles stay strictly to the groomed trails. Unlimited numbers of snow coaches

(the snowmobile equivalent

of buses

) will be allowed on the groomed trails. Snow

coaches are slower

and

less comfortable

than snowmobiles

, and

the

view from snow

coach

es is limited. The extent of the market for snow coach tours is unknown. The p

ark has promised to re

examine snowmobile use ne

xt year.

The EA consider

ed

the alternatives of no action, total closure of the park to snowmobiles, and the proposed action. The p

ark determined that no

environmental

impact

statement

(EIS)

was required because snowmobiles would not create significant env

ironmental impacts during the one

year for which the decision would apply. It did not consider possible long-

term impacts of continued snowmobiling. While the EA was being

prepared, the p

ark began taking reservations for the upcoming snowmobile season. Res

ervations are always made "

subject to changes in p

ark

management."

Fund for Jellystone

(an environmental

group consisting of

members who regularly use the p

ark

) and the Jellystone Area Chamber of Commerce

(a coalition of local businesses

) have

both

challe

nged the decision under

the

National Environmental Policy Act (

NEPA

). Fund for Jellystone

argues that an EIS

was required

and should have considered the long-

term impacts of snowmobile use in the p

ark.

The group also claims that the

EA was impermissibly biased because the decision had already been made. The Jellystone Area Chamber of Commerce agrees that an EIS was

required. The

chamber further argues that the discussion of alternatives should have included guided group snowmobile tri

ps

, restricting access

to new four

-stroke snowmobiles

(which are quieter and cleaner

-burning than the two

-stroke models

), restricting access to particularly sensitive

areas

, or other steps that would limit the environmental impacts of snowmobiles without r

emoving them from the p

ark.

You represent Jellystone National Park. Advise p

ark officials of the prospects of success against the

NEPA claims

raised by Fund for Jellystone and

the

Jellystone Area Chamber of Commerce

. For the

purposes of this question, do

not consider the effects

of any other statutes. Assume that all

issues were raised during public comment opportunities.

Question Two

You have graduated from SNHU and are doing environmental work

for the Conservation Law Foundation. A group of citizens has

contacted you

with complaints about a nearby pig farm that they claim is causing environmental problems. You and one of your colleagues are

doing a

preliminary assessment. You are addressing issues that arise under the federal environmental statutes

. Y

our

colleague is addressing any

common

-law actions, so

you should not spend any time on the common

-law aspects of this case. Your organization has done some preliminary

investigation that reveals the information given below.

The pig farm is owned and operate

d by a company called Oh My Porky

Inc

. The operation is one of the largest pig farm operations in the United

States. Raising pigs is a messy business, as the pigs

prefer wet, dark piles of mud and manure. The operation sluices water through manure piles

wi

th a series of pipes and collects runoff from the piles in ditches. The ditches flow out of one of the farm buildings down to

a large collecting

pond. From the pond, the water is pumped back up into an open holding tank before being recirculated through th

e manure piles. The operation

reuses its water in part because it is efficient to do so, but more importantly, the manure

-infused vat of water contains a high concentration of

nutrients that facilitate growth of organisms that pigs enjoy.

The operation is extremely smelly. Especially on warm, sunny days, the farm produces an odor noticeable for many miles. Oh My Porky

Inc.

borders on a residential neighborhood, and the smell has produced hundreds of complaints. The drainage ditches, collect

ion pond, and the

holding tank for the recirculated water are all completely exposed to the elements. On rainy days, the drainage ditches commo

nly overflow

and

run off over land into

the

Found River

, a small river that runs adjacent to Oh My Porky

Inc

. On very rainy days, the storage tank also overflows.

Finally, during periods of heavy rain, often in the spring, the pond overflows its banks and spills over into the

Found River. On these occasions,

the

river carries the smell of raw manure many miles d

ownstream.

Simply putting a roof over the storage tank would avoid much of this problem, as it would reduce the extent of overflow. Oh My Porky

Inc.,

however, has refused to do this. Even if it did, some problems would remain unresolved. Overflow from the

pond (which would be difficult to

cover) would still sometimes occur, and ditches and the like on the property also leak into the r

iver.

Your research reveals that the EPA has never granted a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permi

t for a pig farm

and has

identified no particular set of technological requirements that would be appropriate for such an operation.

The

Found River flows for another five miles from Oh My Porky

Inc. in Maine before it flows into New Hampshire, and from t

here

on to Great

Bay,

which goes out to the ocean. Maine has designated its stretch of the Found River as a drinkable waterway.

New Hampshire, by contrast,

designates the waterway as a fishable

waterway, thereby demanding higher water quality than Maine

do

es. Although the

Found River's water

quality is such that it satisfies the drinkable

standard, it do

es not satisfy New Hampshire's fishable standard. Specifically, sewage treatment

plants upstream from Oh My Porky

Inc. deposit so much inadequately treated

water into the

Found River that it do

es not support New

Hampshire's

fishable designation. Part of the r

iver's failure to meet the standard, however, arises from the fact that the Narragansett River joins

the

Found River just north of the Maine border. The Narragansett River is a fairly heavily polluted waterway,

as a small Maine town known as

Needs

People

pours an enormous amount of poorly treated sewage into the Narragansett River just before it flows into the

Found River.

Finally, a fish listed as endan

gered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS

) also inhabits the

Found River. This fish, known as the a

rtful

dodger

bass, has dwindled in population in recent years, owing to the inflow of sewage from both the treatment plants in Maine and fr

om

the

Oh

My

Porky

Inc.

farm operation. The FWS has determined that the size of the a

rtful

dodger

bass population has declined in rough proportion to the

amount of untreated organic compounds in the r

iver. The FWS has also designated

the

Found River as a

critical habitat for the fish. A study

conducted by the FWS has identified the sewage treatment plants in Maine and

the

Oh My Porky

Inc.

farm operation

as contributing jointly to

the fish's decline.

The individuals who have contacted you reside alongside the banks o

f the

Found River in both Maine and New Hampshire. They complain that

the water smells bad. They contend that the smell is so bad in

the summer

that they have to keep their windows closed. Several report that they

used to swim in the r

iver but no longer fe

el safe doing so. The residents closest to the facility also report that the odors keep them indoors with

windows closed for much of the year.

Sketch out what kinds of actions your organization could take against

Oh My Porky

Inc. to get them to alter thei

r activities. Assume that your

organization is prepared to sue Oh My Porky

Inc. directly using any aspect of law at its

disposal and is willing to sue any state or federal agency

to get it to crack down on

Oh My Porky

Inc. Again, remember that you are only

addressing the issues that arise under federal environmental law,

and not the common law

.