Bering Strait Citizens for Responsible Resource Development v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying the presumption that practicable alternatives exists for an Alaskan gold mining project because the project was not water dependent
• finding a succinct 16 discussion of cumulative impacts was adequate under NEPA’s pre-2020 regulations 17 where the Corps concluded the mitigation measures would improve the natural 18 conditions
• finding the Corps did not violate the CWA 21 where it considered 24 design alternatives and noting it would be inappropriate for the 22 court to overturn the Corps’ findings even if an argument can be made that one of the 23 unconsidered sites was suitable
• “We hold today that the circulation of a draft EA is not required in every case.... Our conclusion is consistent with the views of other circuits, which uniformly have not insisted on the circulation of a draft EA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).