Chelsea Neighborhood Associations v. U.S. Postal Service, 979

Citation516 F.2d 378
Decision Date30 April 1975
Docket NumberNo. 979,D,979
Parties, 5 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,373 CHELSEA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and E. T. Klassen, Individually and as Postmaster General, Defendants-Appellants. ocket 75-6005.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

John S. Siffert, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Paul J. Curran, U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Mel P. Barkan, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellants.

Peter A. A. Berle, New York City (Berle, Butzel & Kass, Albert K. Butzel, Peter J. Millock, New York City, on the brief), for appellees.

Before FRIENDLY and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and LASKER, District Judge. *

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge:

The United States Postal Service (the Service) 1 appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert J. Ward, J., enjoining it "from entering into any contract for, or proceeding in any way with, the construction of the U. S. Postal Service Vehicle Maintenance Facility" in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan "pending final determination of this action or alternatively, pending . . . (the district) court's determination that there has been compliance with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)." The preliminary injunction was granted upon the motion of plaintiffs, a group of Chelsea neighborhood associations and individuals residing in the area. We affirm the order of the district court. 2

I. Background

In 1968, the then Post Office Department 3 acquired a square-block site next to the Morgan Station postal facility in New York City. Subsequently, it was proposed that the ground levels be used for a Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) and the air space be granted to New York City for public housing. An apartment complex was to be built on the roof of the VMF. This was agreed upon in 1972, 4 and the New York District Army Corps of Engineers commenced preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The first draft of the EIS was released to the public in January 1973. Another draft was prepared and circulated. The final Statement, dated March 26, 1974, was submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality, which published its receipt on April 8, 1974, in the Federal Register. 39 Fed.Reg. 12783 (1974). The EIS described the subject matter of this lawsuit as the construction

of a major U. S. Postal Service vehicle maintenance facility (VMF) in combination with a multi-story housing project in the lower West Side of the Borough of Manhattan, New York City. The project will occupy an entire city block, presently vacant, adjacent to the Morgan Station mail processing center. Features of the proposed action are a multi-story VMF, a housing project of approximately 860 units utilizing air rights space above the VMF, and the closure of 29th Street between Ninth and Tenth Avenues to non-postal traffic, except during the evening rush period. 5

Plaintiffs characterize the VMF as a huge garage with space for over 900 vehicles. Its concrete walls would rise directly from the sidewalk for approximately 80 feet, on top of which would be a flat platform with housing extending upward from there. Noting that approximately 2,200 truck movements in and out of the VMF are anticipated daily, plaintiffs contend that the impact of the garage would devastate their community. The Service points out that many of the trucks would travel to and from the adjacent Morgan Station in any event; the Service also minimizes the impact of the VMF, asserting that it is not located in the Chelsea residential area, but rather on the border between Chelsea and a commercial district. According to the Service, the VMF will actually act as a buffer against further commercial encroachment and help stabilize the area. Nevertheless, plaintiffs clearly do not want the VMF in or near Chelsea. In July 1974, they requested the Service in writing to abandon the VMF and convey the site to the City for strictly residential purposes. Plaintiffs suggested that another site, the Yale Express garage located ten blocks away, be considered. The Service rejected the demand and this action followed. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the project until the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq., had been fully complied with, and asked for a mandate directing the Service to reconsider the VMF in light of the availability of the Yale Express garage. Thereafter, the Service solicited and obtained bids for construction of the VMF alone. Upon plaintiffs' motion, Judge Ward granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the Service was subject to NEPA, and that the EIS already prepared was inadequate. The Clean Air Act and Yale Express allegations were not considered. The judge also denied without prejudice the Service's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the Clean Air Act claims.

On appeal, the Service contends, as it did below, that it is exempt from NEPA. If it is not exempt, the Service argues that the EIS already filed was sufficient. Finally, the Service asks us to dismiss plaintiffs' Clean Air Act claims even though they were not reached below.

II. The Postal Service is subject to NEPA

Appellant's claim that it is exempt from the requirements of NEPA compels a close examination of the language and policy of two statutes: NEPA and the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, upon which appellant relies. The requirements of NEPA are, by this time, well known. That Act provides, among other things, that

(2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes;

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). It is clear that NEPA was designed to cover almost every form of significant federal activity. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Comm'n, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 449 F.2d 1109 (1971). The Service concedes that the VMF-housing project is a "major" federal action "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Indeed, appellant admits that were it not for section 410 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. § 410, it too would have to comply with NEPA. 6 However, according to the Service, section 410 removes it from the environmental mandate Congress has imposed on all federal agencies.

Section 410 provides in part:

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.

The Service contends that this exemption is a generous one, emphasizing not only the variety of subjects covered but also the breadth of the phrase "dealing with." But the exemption in section 410 is obviously not unlimited, and the precise question before us is whether NEPA is properly characterized as a law "dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds." Although the question is a close one, we conclude that it should be answered in the negative.

The Postal Reorganization Act was passed to

Eliminate serious handicaps that are now imposed on the postal service by certain legislative, budgetary, financial, and personnel policies that are outmoded, unnecessary, and inconsistent with the modern management and business practices that must be available if the American public is to enjoy efficient and economical postal service . . . .

H.R.Rep.No.91-1104, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1970, pp. 3649, 3650. It was apparent that Congress felt the old Post Office Department to be entangled in layers of restrictive laws and regulations.

The committee's inquiries and every responsible study show that the Postmaster General is blocked or undercut at every turn by a labyrinth of postal statutes echoing every postal concern, interest, or whim expressed by Congress over a 200-year period. Laws have changed laws and have added to the body of them so that, by accretion, they have multiplied, decade by decade, leaving the Postmaster General bound in his own house. Twist and turn as he may, he cannot function in the public interest as a responsible manager.

S.Rep.No.91-912, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1970). Congress intended to free the Service from the shackles of the past so it could operate its day-to-day affairs in a "businesslike way." H.R.Rep.No.91...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Como-Falcon Coalition v. US Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • December 11, 1978
    ...451 F.2d 1130 (4th Cir. 1971) (medical and reception center for prisoners in rural historic Virginia); Chelsea Ngbrhd. Ass'ns v. United States Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1975) (vehicle maintenance facility and public housing; adequacy of environmental impact 5 Arrangements for emer......
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 9, 1975
    ...decision to utilize New London as "arbitrary or capricious," or an "abuse of discretion." Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. United States Postal Service, 516 F.2d 378, 387 n.23 (2d Cir. 1975). I further disagree with the majority's determination in part 3 of the opinion that the EIS should eva......
  • People Against Nuclear Energy v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 14, 1982
    ...and the environmental design arts." Id. § 4332(2)(A); see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.6, 1507.2 (1981); cf. Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. U. S. Postal Service, 516 F.2d 378, 388 (2d Cir. 1975) (social as well as physical sciences relevant under NEPA; agency must consider dangers of emotional and phy......
  • Columbia Basin Land Protection Ass'n v. Schlesinger
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 20, 1981
    ...in order to give the public a way of "checking on the validity of the (agency's) conclusions." Chelsea Neighborhood Associations v. United States Postal Service, 516 F.2d 378, 389 (2d Cir. 1975); California v. Bergland, 483 F.Supp. 465, 488 (E.D.Cal.1980). Here, where basic information (the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • TEAR DOWN THIS WALL: ALIGNING THE CORPS' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OBLIGATIONS UNDER NEPA AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT FOR SECTION 404 WETLAND PERMITS.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 52 No. 3, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...(109) Id. at 976. (110) Id. (111) Id. at 984. (112) Id. at 980 (emphasis added) (citing Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'n v. U.S. Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. (113) 53 Fed. Reg. 3120, 3122 (Feb. 3, 1988). (114) Parenteau, supra note 16, at 754 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 11 (5) Fr......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 7: Environmental Regulation (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Chateaugay Corp., In re, 944 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1991): 18.3(3), 18.3(4), 18.3(6)(b) Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. U.S. Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1975): 1.4(2) Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 859 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1988): 5.2(3) Chi., Milwaukee & St. Paul & Pac. R.R......
  • §1.4 - When Does NEPA Apply?
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 7: Environmental Regulation (WSBA) Chapter 1 National Environmental Policy Act
    • Invalid date
    ...clear that NEPA was designed to cover almost every form of significant federal activity. Chelsea Neighborhood Assns v. U.S. Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378, 382 (2d Cir. 1975). Direct federal financial involvement, in the form of cash grants, loans, or mortgage insurance, may also amount to majo......
  • Chapter 15 - § 15.3 • THE REGULATION OF LISTED SPECIES ON PRIVATE LAND
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Environmental Regulation of Colorado Real Property (CBA) Chapter 15 Endangered Species Act
    • Invalid date
    ...noted that this standard applies to "almost every form of significant federal activity." Chelsea Neighborhood Ass'ns v. U.S. Postal Serv, 516 F.2d 378, 382 (2d Cir. 1975).[207] 50 C.F.R. § 402.02. The requirements for a BA are provided in 50 C.F.R. § 402.12(f).[208] National Association of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT