NEPA in Indian Country

Stephanie Mott
Env Justice
NEPA in Indian Country
1. Minorities usually have racial classifications whereas NDNs usually have political classifications. NDNs have communicated that they want to have a right to be different rather than be treated equally under the law like minorities are. This has resulted in a right to “measured separatism” ( 229). This gives Congress the constitutional power to make statutes that treat ?a?ffect Indians differently than other citizens including minorities; these statutes usually don’t provide the equal constitutional rights that Indians should receive. The measured separatism of NDNs can lead to them receiving less resources than if they were legally intermixed like the minorities are with the rest of the population of the country. In the chapter they say the legal laws that apply to Indian country produce “… environmental regulatory infrastructure that is simply not comparable to that of the rest of the country” ( 228). NDNs are sovereign governments and other minorities are not. Mainstream American society has established significant limits on tribal sovereignty; this has resulted in Indians having absolutely no control over some aspects of their sovereignty that non-Indian minorities would have control over. The non-NDNs minorities have their rights solely contained in the Constitution and a very limited number of court cases. Most of these court cases have improved minority rights unlike tribal sovereignty cases which have usually supported not improving tribal rights. Minorities are able to receive services that help them follow political laws and prevent political battles much easier than NDNs because the plenary power doctrines that Congress applies to NDNS make it so.
2. “The BIA or another federal agency proposes to take an action affecting the environment” ( 230). “… a federal agency has provided funding to a tribal government” ( 230). “… a tribe or tribal enterprise has arranged for private financing but still needs BIA approval for a transaction involving trust land” ( 230).
3. It requires that “…before any federal agency takes an action “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)” ( 230).
4. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality which is abbreviated as CEQ.
5. There are nine steps that are required to prepare an EIS. The first step is to do a “notice of intent” to make the EIS ( 230). The second step is to do a “scoping processes,” “in which interested persons, organizations, and governmental entities discuss the kinds of environmental impacts that might result from the proposed action and ways to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts, including alternatives to the proposed action” ( 230). The third step is to do write a rough draft of the EIS with any methods that may be needed to get data or to investigate specific concerns. The fourth step is to make the draft GIS viewable for the public to review or comment on. The fifth step is to have a “public comment period” ( 231). The sixth step is to make a final EIS that includes public input received for the draft GIS. The seventh step is the distribution of the final EIS. The eighth step is giving other federal agencies thirty days to comment on the final EIS. The ninth step is to decide what action to take. The action chosen is usually either doing the original action or doing an action that was suggested by the final EIS.
6. An EA is an environmental assessment and is used to determine if the “impacts of a proposed action” will be severe enough to require an EIS to be done. An EA is prepared when one or more of the steps that a proposed federal action will take require a “case-by-case basis” environmental review document analysis to determine whether the actions will have significant environmental impacts that require an EIS to be written ( 231).
7. FONSI can be used in corruptive ways in the NEPA process. A FONSI means the environmental impacts of the proposed actions will not be significant. A FONSI document is officially called a finding of no significant impact document. A FONSI is only supposed to be signed after the federal official responsible for NEPA compliance determines, based on an EA, that the impacts will not be significant. It is very easy for the requirements of NEPA to be done corruptly when there is an EA and a FONSI that are used to fulfill those requirements because there are only a few people that can dispute this action and request that an actual EIS be completed. A “higher level federal official” can reverse the EA and FONSI decision ( 231-232). The other option is that someone could “sue the federal agency and obtain an order from an appeals board or a federal court directing the agency to prepare an EIS” ( 232). “If the federal official determines that the impacts will or may be significant, than an EIS is required” ( 232). When the NEPA process requires an EA, “the responsible federal official can decide to skip the EA step if … it becomes apparent that an EA will not support a FONSI …” ( 232). There doesn’t seem to be any way to hold anyone accountable to explain why the EA step was skipped. No ( )
8. It is “the proponent of an “externally initiated” action ( 233).
9. It is to “rewrite the EA and add mitigation measures to reduce the severity of the impacts” ( 234)
10. There is lack of public involvement ( 234)
11
12. It is “to protect the rights of tribes to continue to exist as self-governing nations within” the land that has been agreed by both sides to be used as Indian tribal land and hopefully is still their ancestral land ( 242)
13.