Often, neighbors, environmental groups, municipalities, and others desire to participate in proceedings related to a permit application pending before the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC" or the "Department"). DEC regulations specify the steps that must be taken in order to gain "party status" and participate in an adjudicatory hearing as an "intervenor."
 

I. General Issues. Intervenors commonly are faced with substantial procedural hurdles that they must satisfy with limited funding and little time (notice of a hearing may be as little as 21 days. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.3(a)).
 

A. Specific Objections. Since generalized objections are of little value, it is important to crystalize objections to a permit or project by citing specific inconsistencies with legal standards or DEC guidance, and definitive environmental impacts. Without qualified expert testimony to back up these claims, opponents' objections may be summarily rejected, since "[w]hile an intervenor's offer of proof at the issues conference need not necessarily be so convincing as to prevail on the merits, its offer must amount to more than mere assertions or conclusions." Akzo Nobel Salt Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (Jan. 31, 1996), upheld in Regional Action Group For The Environment Inc. v. Zagata, 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1997), mot. den'd ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1998). See also WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 583 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1992).
 

B. Citizen Groups. It is advisable for citizen groups to adopt a formal organization so they present a united front to the outside world, including the press, and their lawyer has a single contact, and does not have to deal with internal organizational conflicts. Citizens generally fear reprisal by legal action, and in fact a strategic lawsuit against public participation ("SLAPP") is not uncommon. While Civil Rights Law §§70-a, 76-a provide a defense and counterclaim for a SLAPP suit, it is highly advisable to incorporate an intervenor group under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law prior to participation in DEC or court proceedings. Added advantages are the possibility that the group will qualify for tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) (so that donations may be tax deductible), the formalization of the organization, and insulation from liability for costs if the proceeding ends up in court. Furthermore, while some members may have to be identified to demonstrate standing and comply with filing requirements with the New York State Attorney General, other members and supporters may invoke the First Amendment to remain anonymous behind the corporate veil. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163 (1958). While an unincorporated association can be an intervenor, if it brings a lawsuit, it must sue in the name of its president or treasurer. General Associations Law §12.
 

C. Freedom of Information Law. While often the applicant has been meeting with the DEC for months preparing its application, and sometimes designing a project for years, an intervenor has very limited information on the proposal. It is important to file a freedom information request with DEC and other agencies regarding the project in order to gain as much knowledge as possible about the proposal.
 

D. Strategy. Intervenors should keep in mind that denial of a single permit may be sufficient to derail a project. Thus, an intervenor may only have to win a single battle to win the entire war. Nonetheless, a "shotgun" approach may result in a loss of credibility. Further, while ongoing proceedings may hamper an applicant's ability to finance its project, it is not appropriate to undertake proceedings merely for the purpose of delay. It is often advisable to cooperate with the press and send out press releases on developments, since the press will often be sympathetic to project opponents.
 

II. Party Status. Intervenors are free to make unsworn comments at the Legislative Hearing, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(a), and submit written comments during the public comment period. However, in order to have real impact, an intervenor should appear at the Issues Conference, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(b), and strive to become a party in any adjudicatory hearing that is held. There are two types of party status available for intervenors in a DEC adjudicatory hearing - full party status, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(e)(1), and "amicus status," by which a "person who is not otherwise eligible for party status but who is allowed to introduce written argument upon one or more specific issues." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.2(c).

III. Petition. Person(s) desiring party status must initially file a petition in writing by the date specified in the notice of hearing, which satisfies the requirements of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b).

A. General Requirements
 

1. Identification of Proposed Party. Under 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(1)(i), the petition must "fully identify the proposed party together with the name(s) of the person or persons who will act as representative of the party."
 

2. Demonstration of Standing. A proposed intervenor must set out in the petition its environmental interest in the proceeding, and how it relating to statutes administered by the Department relevant to the particular project. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(1)(ii, iii); see Regional Action Group For The Environment Inc. v. Zagata, Index No. 1822-96 (Sup. Ct. Albany Co. 1996, Cobb, J.), aff'd 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1997), mot. den'd ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1998). In essence, the intervenor must satisfy the general requirements for standing set forth in the case law, pursuant to which the environmental interests of its members must be within the "zone of interest" sought to be protected by the permit program. See Douglaston Civic Association, Inc. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 367 N.Y.S.2d 830, 834 (1974); Ecumenical Task Force of Niagara Frontier, Inc. v. Task Force of Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency, 179 A.D.2d 261, 265, 583 N.Y.S.2d 859 (4th Dep't 1992), app. dis'd. 80 N.Y.2d 758 (1992). A competitor is unlikely do have standing, Society of Plastics Ind. v. Suffolk County, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1991), but may support project opposition. See Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1920 (1993).

3. Status Sought. The petition must denote whether the proposed intervenor is seeking full party or amicus status. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(1)(iv)
 

4. Grounds. The petition must precisely identify the opposition or support for the permit at issue, and grounds for such. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(1)(v).
 

B. Additional Contents for Full Party Status
 

1. Adjudicable Issues. In order to obtain full party status, an intervenor must demonstrate that it has raised an adjudicable issue in accordance with 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c). 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(b)(2)(i). An issue raised by an intervenor must pertain to a substantial term or condition of the draft permit in which the Department staff or applicant do not agree with, 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c)(i), or it must have been a matter that the Department cited in denying the permit that is contested by applicant. If the proposed issue is both substantive and significant, it is adjudicable in the hearing. ECL §70-0119; 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c). Failure to clearly specify the issues ro be considered at the Issues Conference will bar an intervenor from raising them later. Citizens for Clean Air v. NYSDEC, 135 A.D.2d 256, 524 N.Y.S.2d 585 (3d Dep't 1988), app. dis'd 72 N.Y.2d 853, 532 N.Y.S.2d 363 (1988).
 

2. Proof and Specification of Witnesses, Evidence, and Grounds. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(2)(ii) requires that the proposed intervenor "present an offer of proof specifying the witness(es), the nature of the evidence the person expects to present and the grounds upon which the assertion is made with respect to that issue." The purpose of this requisite is to demonstrate the ability to offer relevant proof on adjudicable issues. While probably not required, it is advisable to set forth the offer of proof in admissible form, such as affidavits from experts showing qualifications, factual foundation, and relevant opinions.
 

C. Additional Contents for Amicus Status. A party seeking amicus status must "identify the nature of the legal or policy issue(s) to be briefed" which meets the criteria of 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c) for adjudicable issues, and demonstrate "why the proposed party is in a special position with respect to that issue." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(3).

D. Inadequacy/Supplementation. Petitions may be denied based upon their inadequacy. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(4). Thus, an intervenor is well-advised to follow the format identified in 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b). However, the ALJ may allow supplementation of the petition if the intervenor did not have adequate time to prepare. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(5).
 

E. Late filing. A petition that is filed untimely, according to the deadline established by the notice of hearing, will generally be denied. N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(c)(1). However, there are limited circumstances in which late filing is accepted. If a petitioner demonstrates good cause for its late filing, or can show that the lateness will not adversely affect, significantly delay, or unreasonably prejudice the other parties, a late petition may be granted. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(c)(2).

IV. Issues Conference and ALJ Rulings. At the Issues Conference, the proposed intervenor may present oral argument in support of granting party status and finding adjudicable issues. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(2). Written briefs may later be allowed. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(4). "[T]he purpose of an issues conference is to resolve, as well as narrow issues." ROBBED v. Jorling, Index No. 7879/91 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1991, Boehm, J.), aff'd on opinion below 193 A.D.2d 1144, 600 N.Y.S.2d 653 (4^th Dep't 1993), mot. den'd 82 N.Y.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 557 (1993); 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(b)(2). The ALJ then rules on party status, and whether adjudicable issues have been raised. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §§624.4(b)(5), 624.5(d)(2).
 

A. Full Party Status. The ALJ's decision in granting full party status is based upon whether: (1) the petition is adequate; (2) the proposed intervenor has "raised a substantive and significant issue or that the petitioner can make a meaningful contribution to the record regarding a substantive and significant issue raised by another party"; and (3) the proposed intervenor has standing ("adequate environmental interest"). 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(d)(1).
 

B. Amicus Status. The ALJ's decision is based upon a lesser standard than full party status, since the amicus status provides less rights in the participation or submission in the proceeding. The amicus decision is based upon whether: (1) the petition is adequate; (2) the petitioner has identified "a legal or policy issue which needs to be resolved by the hearing;" and (3) "the petitioner has a sufficient interest in the resolution of such issue and through expertise, special knowledge or unique perspective may contribute materially to the record on such issue." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(d)(2).
 

C. Adjudicable Issues. Generally, the key conflict is whether the intervenor has raised "substantive and significant" issues that merit an adjudicatory hearing. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c) defines "substantive" and "significant" issues as follows:
 

(2) An issue is substantive if there is sufficient doubt about the applicant's ability to meet statutory or regulatory criteria applicable to the project, such that a reasonable person would require further inquiry. In determining whether such a demonstration has been made, the ALJ must consider the proposed issue in light of the application and related documents, the draft permit, the content of any petitions filed for party status, the record of the issues conference and any subsequent written arguments authorized by the ALJ.
 

(3) An issue is significant if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of significant permit conditions in addition to those in the draft permit.
 

See Regional Action Group For The Environment Inc. v. Zagata, 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1997), mot. den'd ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1998); Town of Poughkeepsie v. Zagata, ___ A.D.2d ___, 664 N.Y.S.2d 500 (3^rd Dep't 1997); Concerned Citizens Against Crossgates v. Flacke,

89 A.D.2d 759, 453 N.Y.S.2d 939 (3d Dep't 1982), aff'd on opinion below 58 N.Y.2d 919, 460 N.Y.S.2d 531(1983); Citizens for Clean Air v. NYSDEC, 135 A.D.2d 256, 524 N.Y.S.2d 585 (3d Dep't 1988), app. dis'd 72 N.Y.2d 853, 532 N.Y.S.2d 363 (1988).
 

The question is whether "reasonable minds would inquire further," so that "there is a realistic chance that permit denial will lead to permit denial or the imposition of significant conditions." ROBBED v. Jorling, Index No. 7879/91 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1991, Boehm, J.), aff'd on opinion below 193 A.D.2d 1144, 600 N.Y.S.2d 653 (4^th Dep't 1993), mot. den'd 82 N.Y.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 557 (1993). The purpose of this requirement is to screen out non-meritous issues. In re Hydra-Co. Generations, Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (April 1, 1988). An intervenor must meet the following standard:
 

The degree of proof necessary to meet an intervenor's burden may vary depending on the nature of the matter under consideration, and whether the applicant attempts to rebut the intervenor's offer of proof. However, after the question has been joined, an adjudicable issue exists only where there are sufficient doubts about the applicant's ability to meet all statutory and regulatory criteria such that reasonable minds would inquire further. Requiring a greater showing would effect an unfair burden on intervening parties; requiring a lesser showing would over-burden the adjudicatory system with issues of dubious merit.
 

In the Matter of Hydra-Co. Generations, Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (April 1, 1988); Akzo Nobel Salt Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (Jan. 31, 1996). Further, an intervenor must specify the particular regulations "which would be violated by the project," or are otherwise pertinent. Regional Action Group For The Environment Inc. v. Zagata, Index No. 1822-96 (Sup. Ct. Albany Co. 1996, Cobb, J.), aff'd 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1997), mot. den'd ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1998).
 

SEQRA issues may be adjudicated unless another agency acts as lead agency. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c)(6). Application completeness may not be adjudicated, §624.4(c)(7), while in Department- initiated modifications, suspensions or revocations, "[t]he only issues that may be adjudicated are those related to the basis for modification, suspension or revocation cited in the department's notice to the permittee." §624.4(c)(8).
 

"[T]he Department's expertise in matters" is analyzed and strongly considered in determining whether party status petitioners have raised any adjudicable issues." In re Hydra-Co. Generations, Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner, p. 2 (April 1, 1986). Furthermore, the courts will show great deference to the Commissioner's ultimate determination on the issues ruling, due to the technical and scientific issues involved. Regional Action Group For The Environment Inc. v. Zagata, 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1997), mot. den'd ___ N.Y.2d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1998).
 

D. Burden of Proof. "The applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that its proposal will be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations administered by the department." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.9(b). However:
 

In situations where the department staff has reviewed an application and finds that a component of the applicant's project, as proposed or as conditioned by the draft permit, conforms to all applicable requirements of statute and regulation, the burden of persuasion is on the potential party proposing any issue related to that component to demonstrate that it is both substantive and significant.
 

6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c)(4). Thus, "'[t]he application together with the Department Staff's draft permit constitute a prima facie showing that the project as conditioned would meet all regulatory criteria.'" ROBBED v. Jorling, Index No. 7879/91 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 1991, Boehm, J.), aff'd on opinion below 193 A.D.2d 1144, 600 N.Y.S.2d 653 (4^th Dep't 1993), mot. den'd 82 N.Y.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 557 (1993). At that point, "[t]he adjudicatory proponents have the burden to show facts warranting adjudication." Akzo Nobel Salt Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (Jan. 31, 1996). "The burden is upon [intervenors] to provide a clear explanation of the issues sought to be adjudicated and not merely make obscure references to matters which should be considered and then, thereafter, seek to set aside the determination on the ground that there was a failure to consider those matters Citizens for Clean Air v. NYSDEC, 135 A.D.2d 256, 262, 524 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588 (3d Dep't 1988), app. dis'd 72 N.Y.2d 853, 532 N.Y.S.2d 363 (1988).
 

V. Adjudicatory Hearing. "If the ALJ determines that there are no adjudicable issues, the ALJ will direct that the hearing be canceled and that the staff continue processing the application to issue the requested permit." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.4(c)(5); see Akzo Nobel Salt Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner (Jan. 31, 1996). However, if party status is granted and issues are found, an intervenor may participate in the adjudicatory hearing.
 

A. Full Party Status. An intervenor with full-party status may fully participate in the hearing by itself or an authorized representative. A full-party intervenor may present and submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue the issues of law and fact. Additionally, it has the power to "initiate motions, requests, briefs. . ." and other form of writings in the proceeding, and receive all correspondence pertaining to the proceeding, just as all other parties do. Moreover, it has the power to appeal the ALJ's decision and have all the same rights as to the other parties. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(e)(1). An intervenor has the right to participate in discovery, so that in Town of Northumberland v. Sterman, ___ A.D.2d ___, 1998 WL 3890 (3^rd Dep't 1998), the intervenor was arbitrarily denied access to test a landfill site prior to the hearing.
 

B. Amicus Status. Although petitioners with amicus status can also file a brief and may be able to present an oral argument on the issues, they do not have the other rights obtainable through full-party status. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(e)(2).

C. Loss of Party Status. The granting of party-status is not interminable. It can be taken away if petitioner fails to comply with the "laws, rules, or directives of the ALJ." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §624.5(f).