Environment: The Role of Comment Agencies in NEPA Litigation, 14 Harv.
elements and/or analyses required by NEPA and the CEQ regulations; often
identify, early in the NEPA process, opportunities for integrating those
The NEPA FONSI process presupposes that a significant effect is adverse, the state process requires an effect be adverse to be significant, and the handbook indicates the two processes are largely the same.
In fact, it seems quite likely that should NEPA be interpreted to require an EIS for beneficial significant impacts, agencies would do their best to avoid or "mitigate" beneficial significant impacts.
This, of course, is the fundamental purpose of the NEPA process, the end to which the EIS is a means.
Bureau of Reclamation held that the Bureau need not conduct NEPA review of annual operating plans for Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River, even though its operations had changed greatly over the years.
153) The plaintiff argued that the Corps violated NEPA by raising the level of Isabella Reservoir--and thus inundating habitat used by an endangered bird--without first producing an EIS.
The foregoing NEPA cases involving Bureau project operations have two major things in common.
much opposition, (45) NEPA became the country's "basic
The stated policies of NEPA are "to use all practicable means
The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA explain that there are