2020-06-23_REVISION - C1980007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest.... 951 F.3d 1217 (2020) 141 151 161 171 Administrative Law and Procedure *- Sufficiency of theory or grounds provided by agency Court will uphold agency's decision of less than ideal clarity if agency's path may reasonably be discerned but will not supply reasoned basis for agency's action that agency itself has not given. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). Environmental Law 0- Duty of government bodies to consider environment in general NEPA requires federal agencies to pause before committing resources to project and consider likely environmental impacts of preferred course of action as well as reasonable alternatives. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C). Environmental Law •- Duty of government bodies to consider environment in general Twin aims of NEPA are to require agencies to consider every significant aspect of proposed action's environmental impact and to facilitate public involvement. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C). Environmental Law •- Duty of government bodies to consider environment in general NEPA is strictly procedural statute that does not mandate substantive results. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C). Environmental Law *- Assessments and impact statements In reviewing adequacy of agency's analysis of alternatives in environmental impact statement (EIS), court must apply rule of reason, determining whether statement contained sufficient discussion of relevant issues and opposing viewpoints to enable agency to take hard look at environmental impacts of proposed action and its alternatives, and to make reasoned decision. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). 181 Environmental Law 0- Consideration of alternatives In preparing environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to NEPA, once agency establishes proposed action's objective—which it has considerable discretion to define—agency need not provide detailed study of alternatives that do not accomplish that purpose or objective, as those alternatives are not reasonable, but agency may not define proposed action's objectives so narrowly as to preclude reasonable consideration of alternatives. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). 191 Environmental Law Consideration of alternatives NEPA does not require agency to consider alternative in evaluating environmental impact of proposed agency action unless it is significantly distinguishable from alternatives already considered. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102,42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C) (iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). 1101 Administrative Law and Procedure *- Review for arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or illegal actions in general Court must judge agency action's reasonableness against two guideposts: (1) agency's statutory mandate, and (2) agency's objectives for particular project. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A). 1111 Environmental Law 0- Mining; oil and gas United States Forest Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in eliminating proposed alternative that would remove roadless portion of project area from mining area in supplemental