Reference no: EM131736645
Discussion Question 1: Standing to Appeal EIS Decision
The Greenwood Development Corporation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) held a series of public meetings regarding environmental issues surrounding the construction of a new interstate interchange to connect with Greenwood's new industrial park, which would bring thousands of jobs to a small rural area.
Most of the discussions at these meetings, which were attended by rich environmental and business groups, focused on the wetlands habitat and the protection of farmland.
When all the groups and the FHA reached an agreement on how to proceed, they decided on the alternative in the EIS to implement. Ten days after all the groups and the FHA had reached an agreement in the matter, a low-income housing advocates group that had not come to the negotiation sessions filed an appeal in the federal court.
The group claimed the EIS did not consider the project's cultural impact on the poor citizens of the area.
Based on the above information, answer the following questions:
Should the group be allowed to continue its appeal in the federal court? Why or why not?
What do you think the group should have, as a minimum, to demonstrate federal standing to appeal the FHA's EIS decision?
Discussion Question 2: Right to New EIS
Two years after the Greenwood Development Corporation opened its original small industrial park, it returned to the local land-use planning officials. It sought permits for a project about 10 times the size of the original.
This new project included factories and massive shipping outlets, which would involve truck traffic over the new interstate highway exchange.
This traffic would be many times the rate represented by Greenwood in its federal EIS and its negotiations with the FHA during its original project. Despite that no new federal action would be required, the town officials petitioned the FHA to require a new EIS.
Based on the above information, answer the following questions:
On what grounds could the FHA require a new EIS?
Should it do so?
Explain which component would be responsible for the project after the original project's construction. Why?