Nepa and Seqra the National Environmental Policy

NEPA and SEQRA

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was ratified in 1970. It is a federal law that is designed to assess the damage to the environment from various projects. This was in response to decades of neglect to the ecosystem and its effect on the general public. Under the law, any project that is initiated by the federal government must conduct some type of evaluation to determine the impact of its activities on nature. This takes place by having all federal agencies conduct Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Studies prior to implementation. These tools are helping to provide an objective analysis of the proposed project on the ecosystem. It is at this point, that the effects will clear by taking into account a number of perspectives (prior to beginning). What these regulations do is to create a standard that must be utilized in all projects that are concentrating on the long-term influences for the ecosystem. ("National Environmental Policy Act")

The NEPA had been continually litigated since its inception. This is because the provisions are general in scope and provide no specifics on how any kind of study should be conducted. This meant that a number of court cases supported the basic standards of having an assessment completed to include: Lee v. U.S. Air Force, Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Flowers and Communities Against Runway Expansion v. FAA. These decisions are showing how the different studies to determine the environmental impact, are legal and must be conducted prior to the implementation of any project. (Schwartz)

However, there are also a number of court cases that are demonstrating that more specific guidance must be utilized when following the regulations. The most notable include: Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Bureau of Land Management, Lands Council v. Powell, Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior, Wilderness Watch & Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Mainella and High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell. These decisions are illustrating how all parties must conduct an environmental assessment that is focused on all relevant factors (which could impact the ecosystem). Anything less than this standard, is considered to be a violation of the NEPA. (Schwartz)

State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) is focusing on the effects of the State of New York's activities and local jurisdictions pertaining to the ecosystem. Under the law, all government entities must identify and mitigate any kind of possible damage to the environment from any projects. This is accomplished using an Environmental Assessment Form (which is an analysis of these actions and their effect on ecology of an area). The basic idea is to take the federal standards and apply them on the local / state level. This allows stakeholders to see the full extent of their activities prior to the implementation of any new projects. These laws are designed to protect the interests of the general public and enhance federal regulations (by directly applying them to state as well local agencies). In the future, this is providing everyone with a more balanced perspective surrounding the impact of their activities on the environment. ("SEQR")

There are several court cases that affirm the legality of SEQRA in addressing state and local environmental projects to include: Gordon v. Rush along with Spitzer v. Farrell. In both decisions, the courts found that conducting these kinds of assessments are a necessary part of limiting ecological damage. This means that all entities must use these surveys and the standards from other agencies (i.e. EPA) when conducting their reviews. When this happens, the party is able to show that they are incompliance with these provisions of the law. ("State Environmental Quality Review Act")

However, there have been situations where these assessments have ignored critical facts that will impact the ecology. A good example of this can be seen by looking no further than Pine Bush v. Common Council of Albany. In this decision, there was a complaint brought before the courts that questioned if members of an environmental group have the knowledge (i.e. standing) to make an informed decision. This is based on an environmental organization claiming that the assessment failed to take into account factors such as: the impact of a municipal project on protected species of birds. The city of Albany argued that these individuals did not have the standing or sophistication to understand the report. The court found that they do, because they use the location more than ordinary citizens and are familiar with the ecology in the area. This meant that the initial report that was conducted is flawed by ignoring other aspects that could affect the environment. ("State Environmental Quality Review Act")

Please discuss the concept of standing. What the legal guidelines that must be met to be deemed to have legal standing, and discuss at least 2 court decisions where "standing" was a key issue.

Standing is when a party can show that they are an expert who understands the environmental impact of the proposed activities. This was designed to ensure that the number of frivolous law suits is reduced by limiting the requirements for engaging in any kind of litigation. One of the best examples of this can be seen with Pine Bush v. Common Council of Albany. Like what was state previously, the city of Albany argued that the environmental group was not a legitimate plaintiff. This is because they did not have the knowledge to understand the impact of their activities. The Supreme Court of New York determined that they do. As these individuals utilize the park more so than other citizens (which gives them special insights). This is important in establishing who qualifies as a standing party in a legal proceeding. ("State Environmental Quality Review Act")