|
<br />National Environmenlal Policy Act (
<br />
<br />002257
<br />
<br />Page 2 of3
<br />
<br />3. Under CEQ regulations, an agency can discuss or implement the alternative of doing nothing, In fact, the regulations
<br />require the agency to explain why it did not choose the "no action" alternative. In addition, the consequences of all
<br />alternatives being considered must be discussed, To determine which environmental impacts must be addressed, "rule of
<br />reason" test is used. (p.49)
<br />
<br />4. The "rule afreason" test that is used to determine which alternatives must be discussed in an EIS consists of whether
<br />or not a reasonable person would think that a particular alternative was sufficiently significant to warrant discussion.
<br />(p.47)
<br />
<br />5. Given previous Supreme Court decisions concerning NEPA cases, would you say that the Supreme Court supports or
<br />refutes the contributions that the NEP A has made to the environment?
<br />
<br />The Supreme Court did not so simply support or refute NEPA in their early rulings concerning NEPA; instead, I think
<br />they regarded it as a poorly-drafted piece oflegislation in need of a substantial clarification, In this way, they didn't give
<br />NEPA special treatment just because it concerned cleaning up the environment, but put it wough the wringer. As Findly
<br />and Farber put it: "..,the Court seems to view NEPA as merely a gloss on a general body offederal administrative law,
<br />rather than as reflecting any congressional desire for a radically new approach by agencies" (42), Thus, the Court did not
<br />entirely respect NEP A's aims, Whether or not they supported or refuted the contributions NEP A made is difficult to
<br />assess; this is more up to the opinions of individual justices.
<br />
<br />6, According to the author of our text, which section of NEP A is the most significant? What is its primary purpose, and
<br />list its subsections.
<br />
<br />Findley and Farber identify section 102(2) as the most significant provision ofNEPA (p/,26) This section requires that all
<br />government agencies must consider environmental impact when making major decisions, Subsections (a) and (b) detail
<br />this requirement, while subsection (c) explains the important Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) provision,
<br />Subsection (d) is not listed in our book, but subsection (e) requires agencies to devise altemative courses of action to the
<br />one proposed,
<br />
<br />7, What is an EIS? What is the first step in the EIS process? Explain,
<br />
<br />An EIS, as Findley and Farber put it, is a "detailed explanation of the environmental consequences of (an agency's)
<br />actions" any time a federal agency is undertaking a major project with significant environmental impact (p, 26-27), EISs
<br />are supposed to be available for review by other agencies, their officials, and the public, The first step in writing an EIS
<br />(once it's been determined that an EIS in necessary) is writing an environmental assessment, which explains the need for
<br />an EIS (p, 34),
<br />
<br />8, Ifan agency wanted to evade NEPA, bow might they accomplisb this feat? Give an example,
<br />
<br />If a federal agency wanted to evade NEP A and avoid writing an EIS for a project that may turn out to be an
<br />environmental disaster, they may SEGMENT their project proposal. In other words, they may break it up into
<br />environmentally sound parts and environmentally disastrous parts (SEGMENTATION), Then they may go ahead and
<br />write up an EIS for the environmentally sowld parts of the project, proceed with those parts of the project and then
<br />afterwards propose the envirorunental disaster. They would not write an EIS for the whole project at once and this is
<br />why; Example; Sayan agency wanted to build a highway through a wildlife preserve, They may segment they project
<br />into Wee parts: One part on the near side of the preserve and the far side of the preserve and the one part in the middle,
<br />Now they may propose and write and EIS for the near and far segments of the highway and get them approved and built,
<br />Then it will propose the middle section that would be an ecological disaster, To argue the execution of the middle
<br />section, they would claim that millions of dollars would be lost if it wasn't completed..,this may get it built. Cost-
<br />effectiveness, this is what the government is all for!
<br />However this is nol the case, the Supreme Court ruled that agencies cannot do this; they must write an EtS for the whole
<br />and complete project at the same time to avoid and defeat the purpose of NEP A.
<br />
<br />9, Do you feel that NEPA has served a useful purpose, despite that fact that expert opinions differ?
<br />
<br />NEPA has served a useful purpose, just a limited one, NEPA has successfully imposed strict environmental limits on
<br />federal projects to make them safer, and has even prevented the implementation of sever projects that were
<br />environmentally unacceptable in the beginning, The Act would be more effective if it would be supported by the
<br />professional community and the Courts, Its ahnost as if the Courts do not support the NEPA,just enforce it as the statute
<br />dictates, As for expert opinions, they are often swayed by monetary cost effectiveness, What most people dont realize is
<br />that when it comes to protecting the environment it is almost always possible to devise cost effective alternative courses
<br />of action and when its not, who wouldnt pay a few extra dollars to protect their environment that they live in? So NEP A
<br />
<br />hllp:/ /www.ssu.missouri.edu/courses/AgEcI56/nepaeisqueslionsanswers.htm
<br />
<br />9/21/98
<br />
|