38 Cited authorities

  1. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 15,141 times   433 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes
  2. United States v. Mead Corp.

    533 U.S. 218 (2001)   Cited 2,358 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency interpretation that doesn't carry "the force of law" is only "eligible to claim respect according to its persuasiveness"
  3. Russello v. United States

    464 U.S. 16 (1983)   Cited 1,854 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
  4. Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.

    443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 3,697 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant
  5. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

    490 U.S. 332 (1989)   Cited 1,235 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the National Forest Service's interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act was entitled to deference and reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals because it failed to give adequate deference to the Forest Service's interpretation of its own regulation
  6. Kleppe v. Sierra Club

    427 U.S. 390 (1976)   Cited 940 times
    Holding that role of court in reviewing agency action under NEPA is to ensure agency has taken a "hard look" at environmental consequences; the court cannot "interject itself within the area of discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken."
  7. Lands Council v. McNair

    537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 618 times
    Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data
  8. Northwest Ecos. v. U.S. Fish Wildlife

    475 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that “the DPS Policy is a reasonable construction of ‘distinct population segment’ ”
  9. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv

    418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that the Forest Service's EIS failed to demonstrate that the proposed project complied with the applicable Forest Plan requirements, and remanding to the Forest Service to fix the error
  10. Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S. Forest Service

    189 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that once an agency makes a determination based on proper factors, the decision implicates substantial agency expertise and is entitled to deference
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 287,164 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 18,246 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"
  13. Section 4332 - Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts

    42 U.S.C. § 4332   Cited 3,388 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment
  14. Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 4321   Cited 3,306 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"
  15. Section 4331 - Congressional declaration of national environmental policy

    42 U.S.C. § 4331   Cited 658 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man," and declaring the federal government’s responsibility to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage"
  16. Section 21002 - Policy of state as alternatives or mitigation measures lessening environmental affects of public agency projects

    Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21002   Cited 196 times

    The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible

  17. Section 6591b - Administrative review

    16 U.S.C. § 6591b   Cited 19 times

    (a) In general Except as provided in subsection (d), a project described in subsection (b) that is conducted in accordance with section 6591a(d) of this title may be- (1) considered an action categorically excluded from the requirements of Public Law 91-190 ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (2) exempt from the special administrative review process under section 6515 of this title. (b) Collaborative restoration project (1) In general A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project to carry out forest

  18. Section 6591a - Designation of treatment areas

    16 U.S.C. § 6591a   Cited 12 times

    (a) Definition of declining forest health In this section, the term "declining forest health" means a forest that is experiencing- (1) substantially increased tree mortality due to insect or disease infestation; or (2) dieback due to infestation or defoliation by insects or disease. (b) Designation of treatment areas (1) Initial areas Not later than 60 days after February 7, 2014, the Secretary shall, if requested by the Governor of the State, designate as part of an insect and disease treatment

  19. Section 6554 - Applied silvicultural assessments

    16 U.S.C. § 6554   Cited 4 times
    Providing that projects "carried out under this section ... may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement and environmental assessment under [NEPA]"
  20. Section 1501.4 - Categorical exclusions

    40 C.F.R. § 1501.4   Cited 694 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Allowing agencies to initially develop an EA in lieu of an EIS if the EIS is not mandatory in the given context or not evidently required
  21. Section 1507.3 - Agency NEPA procedures

    40 C.F.R. § 1507.3   Cited 91 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring agencies to set "[s]pecific criteria" for what actions "normally do not require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment"
  22. Section 220.6 - Categorical exclusions

    36 C.F.R. § 220.6   Cited 38 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a)General. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EIS or EA only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if: (1) The proposed action is within one of the categories established by the Secretary at 7 CFR part 1b.3; or (2) The proposed action is within a category listed in § 220.6(d) and (e). (b)Resource conditions. (1) Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances

  23. Section 220.4 - General requirements

    36 C.F.R. § 220.4   Cited 27 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Providing that cumulative effects analyses need not "catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions"
  24. Section 1506.8 - Proposals for legislation

    40 C.F.R. § 1506.8   Cited 5 times

    (a) When developing legislation, agencies shall integrate the NEPA process for proposals for legislation significantly affecting the quality of the human environment with the legislative process of the Congress. Technical drafting assistance does not by itself constitute a legislative proposal. Only the agency that has primary responsibility for the subject matter involved will prepare a legislative environmental impact statement. (b) A legislative environmental impact statement is the detailed statement