§

40 C.F.R. § 1502.16

Section 1502.16 - Environmental consequences
Section 1502.16 - Environmental consequences

17 Citing briefs

  1. Concerned Citizens And Retired Miners Coalition et al v. United States Forest Service et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 3, 2017

    14(f)).” 40 C.F.R. §1502.16(h). NEPA regulations define “mitigation” as a way to avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for the impact of a potentially harmful action.

  2. San Juan Citizens Alliance et al v. United States Bureau of Land Management et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs' Opening Merits Brief

    Filed November 18, 2016

    BLM019148 (describing in detail regional climate change impacts on resources in the Southwest). Because BLM failed to mention, let alone apply, these quantified and observable impacts of climate change on resources in the SFNF, the EA did not comply with NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15 (discussing use of data and analysis to describe affected environment); id. § 1502.16 (detailing analysis of environmental consequences); id. § 1502.24 (requiring agencies to use high quality information and ensure professional and scientific integrity); id. § 1508.9 (discussing environmental assessment). B. BLM Failed to Take a Hard Look at Impacts from Leasing on Air Quality BLM also failed to take a hard look at the impacts of leasing in the SFNF on air quality.

  3. Openlands et al v. United States Department of Transportation et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed June 4, 2014

    B. The Agencies Adequately Addressed Any Potential Conflicts or Inconsistencies with Applicable State and Local Plans The Agencies properly considered applicable land use plans and other State and local requirements in evaluating the proposed Project. Plaintiffs argue that the FEIS fails to satisfy the requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c) and (d) to discuss “possible conflicts” with “land use plans, policies, and controls,” as well as “any inconsistency” with a State or local law or approved plan. (Pls.’

  4. Yount v. Jewell et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of

    Filed December 6, 2013

    II. FEIS FAILED TO IDENTIFY AND RECONCILE INCONSISTENCIES WITH LOCAL LAND USE PLANS The CEQ regulations require an agency to discuss possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of local land use plans and policies of the area, 40 C.F.R. §1502.16(c), and the extent to which such inconsistencies may be reconciled. 40 C.F.R. §1506.

  5. Montana Elders For A Livable Tomorrow et al v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining et al

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Michelle-Ann C. Williams appearing for Defendants David Berry, Sally Jewell, Joseph Pizarchik, Robert Postle, Janice Schneider

    Filed January 27, 2017

    The EIS must Case 9:15-cv-00106-DWM Document 48 Filed 01/27/17 Page 11 of 41 6 examine, among other things, “alternatives to the proposed action,” and the project’s direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16, 1508.7.

  6. Cascadia Wildlands et al v. Carlton et al

    Motion for Summary Judgment . Oral Argument requested.

    Filed October 31, 2016

    Specifically, NEPA requires that the Forest Service disclose and analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and consequences of its activities. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(a), 1502.16(b), 1508.

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

    Brief/Memorandum in Support re

    Filed September 30, 2016

    14(f)).” 40 C.F.R. §1502.16(h). Case 9:16-cv-00053-DWM Document 36 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 33 6 The Forest Service has failed to meet these requirements by inconsistently applying evaluation criteria in analyzing the chosen Poorman Tailings Impoundment alternative, inadequately addressing mitigation measures, and deferring determination of the suitability of, and review of many projected impacts from, the Poorman Tailings Impoundment alternative until after the JFEIS and ROD were completed.

  8. Openlands et al v. United States Department of Transportation et al

    REPLY

    Filed July 2, 2014

    Also, an EIS must discuss “conflicts” and “inconsistenc[ies]” with regional and local plans. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(c) and 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2(d).

  9. Center for Biological Diversity et al v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Revised Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 8, 2008

    14 (f)).” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16 (h). The WEMO Plan developed conservation strategies for listed species, and mitigation measures appear throughout the FEIS.

  10. Center for Food Safety et al v. Connor et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof

    Filed June 2, 2008

    14(a).2 An EIS must also include a full and fair discussion of the proposed action’s effects and their significance. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16. Relevant effects may be “ecological . . . aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.”