27 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,328 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
490 U.S. 332 (1989) Cited 1,390 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
435 U.S. 519 (1978) Cited 1,757 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that where rulemaking fulfills basic APA standards for notice and procedure, a court will not impose additional process
Lands Council v. McNair
537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 700 times
Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data
Lands Council v. Powell
395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 475 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that reliance on 13–year–old habitat studies was arbitrary and capricious
Occidental Engineering Co. v. I.N.S.
753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 643 times
Finding that plaintiff's editing role was not equivalent to a specialty occupation because he did not supervise journalists
Blue Mt. Biodiversity Proj. v. Blackwood
161 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 345 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that conflicting evidence on the effects of ecological intervention in post-fire landscapes made a proposed project highly uncertain, thus requiring an EIS
Western Watersheds v. Kraayenbrink
620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 226 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "may consider evidence outside the administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing [an] ESA claim"
Northern Plains Res. Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd.
668 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 149 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an agency is "afforded deference in choosing its scientific method for modeling data" even under NEPA's more stringent "hard look" analysis
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas
137 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 192 times
Holding that when the cumulative impact of multiple agency actions is analyzed in an EA or EIS in connection with one of the actions, no supplemental EA or EIS is needed in connection with the remaining actions
Section 706 - Scope of review
5 U.S.C. § 706 Cited 20,443 times 184 Legal Analyses
Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"
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 1344 - Permits for dredged or fill material
33 U.S.C. § 1344 Cited 1,148 times 38 Legal Analyses
Providing that federal agencies issue permits for navigable waters—defined as those waters used or susceptible to use in interstate commerce
Section 478 - Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting
16 U.S.C. § 478 Cited 76 times
Acknowledging the Secretary of Agriculture's authority under 16 U.S.C. § 551, and other provisions, to prescribe rules and regulations to prevent "depredations upon the public forests and national forests" but noting such authorization "shall not be construed as prohibiting any person . . . from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof"
Section 320.4 - General policies for evaluating permit applications
33 C.F.R. § 320.4 Cited 268 times 2 Legal Analyses
Guiding the Corps’ "decision whether to issue a permit"
Section 1502.16 - Environmental consequences
40 C.F.R. § 1502.16 Cited 172 times 5 Legal Analyses
Stating that the detailed statement should include: "environmental impacts of the alternatives . . ., any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposal"
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 325.2 - Processing of applications
33 C.F.R. § 325.2 Cited 97 times 12 Legal Analyses
Processing of applications
Section 230.1 - Purpose and policy
40 C.F.R. § 230.1 Cited 47 times
Providing that the Secretary must consider whether the discharge will "have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystems of concern"
Section 228.8 - Requirements for environmental protection
36 C.F.R. § 228.8 Cited 24 times
Identifying federal and state air, water, and solid waste standards that must be complied with and requiring operators to "take all practicable measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations"

Save Our Cabinets et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

27 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

Holding that where rulemaking fulfills basic APA standards for notice and procedure, a court will not impose additional process

Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data

Holding that reliance on 13–year–old habitat studies was arbitrary and capricious

Finding that plaintiff's editing role was not equivalent to a specialty occupation because he did not supervise journalists

Holding that conflicting evidence on the effects of ecological intervention in post-fire landscapes made a proposed project highly uncertain, thus requiring an EIS

Holding that a court "may consider evidence outside the administrative record for the limited purposes of reviewing [an] ESA claim"

Holding that an agency is "afforded deference in choosing its scientific method for modeling data" even under NEPA's more stringent "hard look" analysis

Holding that when the cumulative impact of multiple agency actions is analyzed in an EA or EIS in connection with one of the actions, no supplemental EA or EIS is needed in connection with the remaining actions

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

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

Providing that federal agencies issue permits for navigable waters—defined as those waters used or susceptible to use in interstate commerce

Guiding the Corps’ "decision whether to issue a permit"

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

Processing of applications

Providing that the Secretary must consider whether the discharge will "have an unacceptable adverse impact either individually or in combination with known and/or probable impacts of other activities affecting the ecosystems of concern"

Identifying federal and state air, water, and solid waste standards that must be complied with and requiring operators to "take all practicable measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations"