48 Cited authorities

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.
555 U.S. 7 (2008) Cited 16,773 times 56 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.
463 U.S. 29 (1983) Cited 6,629 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
401 U.S. 402 (1971) Cited 5,969 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
490 U.S. 332 (1989) Cited 1,388 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"
Kleppe v. Sierra Club
427 U.S. 390 (1976) Cited 1,017 times 2 Legal Analyses
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."
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy
460 U.S. 766 (1983) Cited 162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission properly considered the risk and effect of a possible nuclear accident, though it did not need to consider the effect of such risk on the psychological well-being of residents
Klamath-Siskiyou v. Bureau of Land
387 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 217 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a cumulative impact analysis was inadequate where the EA did not address "the potential for a combined effect from the combined runoffs" from two separate minerals or the effect of the loss of the spotted owl's habitat on the region that the petitioner identified
Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse
305 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 225 times
Holding that use of habitat as a proxy for population monitoring of the management indicator species was arbitrary and capricious where record indicated that the Forest Service's habitat standard and measurements were erroneous
National Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt
241 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 233 times
Holding EIS must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain
Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Service
442 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 201 times
Holding an EIS for a forest project inadequate because it failed properly to consider "tree mortality"
Section 706 - Scope of review
5 U.S.C. § 706 Cited 20,433 times 184 Legal Analyses
Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"
Section 4332 - Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts
42 U.S.C. § 4332 Cited 3,613 times 28 Legal Analyses
Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment
Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose
42 U.S.C. § 4321 Cited 3,499 times 30 Legal Analyses
Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"
Section 4331 - Congressional declaration of national environmental policy
42 U.S.C. § 4331 Cited 697 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"
Section 1501.4 - Categorical exclusions
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 Cited 751 times 9 Legal Analyses
Explaining that agencies may prepare a concise environmental assessment to determine if a more detailed environmental impact is required
Section 1500.1 - Purpose and policy
40 C.F.R. § 1500.1 Cited 460 times 2 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the purpose of NEPA's procedures is to make information available before decisions are made
Section 1502.24 - Environmental review and consultation requirements
40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 Cited 111 times
Noting that agencies should "make explicit reference . . . to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement"
Section 1503.4 - Response to comments
40 C.F.R. § 1503.4 Cited 88 times
Requiring agencies, when preparing an EIS, to respond to comments by explaining in the EIS why the comments do not warrant further agency response and by citing the authorities or reasons that support the agency's position
Section 1501.2 - Apply NEPA early in the process
40 C.F.R. § 1501.2 Cited 71 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring that "[a]gencies . . . integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values. . . ."
Section 989.8 - Analysis of alternatives
32 C.F.R. § 989.8 Cited 3 times
(a) The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and the "no action" alternative in all EAs and EISs, as fully as the proposed action alternative. (b) "Reasonable" alternatives are those that meet the underlying purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular course of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those directly within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may
Section 989.22 - Mitigation
32 C.F.R. § 989.22
(a) When preparing EIAP documents, indicate clearly whether mitigation measures (40 CFR 1508.20 ) must be implemented for the alternative selected. If using Best Management Practices (BMPs), identify the specific BMPs being used and include those BMPs in the mitigation plan. Discuss mitigation measures in terms of "will" and "would" when such measures have already been incorporated into the proposal. Use terms like "may" and "could" when proposing or suggesting mitigation measures. Both the public
Section 46.115 - Consideration of past actions in the analysis of cumulative effects
43 C.F.R. § 46.115 1 Legal Analyses
When considering the effects of past actions as part of a cumulative effects analysis, the Responsible Official must analyze the effects in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7 and in accordance with relevant guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, such as "The Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Memorandum on Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis" dated June 24, 2005, or any superseding Council on Environmental Quality guidance. 43 C.F.R. § 46.115

Ornelas et al v. United States Department of The Air Force et al

48 Cited authorities

Holding that a plaintiff must establish "that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm"

Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"

Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

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."

Holding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission properly considered the risk and effect of a possible nuclear accident, though it did not need to consider the effect of such risk on the psychological well-being of residents

Holding that a cumulative impact analysis was inadequate where the EA did not address "the potential for a combined effect from the combined runoffs" from two separate minerals or the effect of the loss of the spotted owl's habitat on the region that the petitioner identified

Holding that use of habitat as a proxy for population monitoring of the management indicator species was arbitrary and capricious where record indicated that the Forest Service's habitat standard and measurements were erroneous

Holding EIS must be prepared where monitoring and mitigation measures were uncertain

Holding an EIS for a forest project inadequate because it failed properly to consider "tree mortality"

Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment

Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

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"

Explaining that agencies may prepare a concise environmental assessment to determine if a more detailed environmental impact is required

Explaining that the purpose of NEPA's procedures is to make information available before decisions are made

Noting that agencies should "make explicit reference . . . to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement"

Requiring agencies, when preparing an EIS, to respond to comments by explaining in the EIS why the comments do not warrant further agency response and by citing the authorities or reasons that support the agency's position

Requiring that "[a]gencies . . . integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values. . . ."