Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthorne

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agency is not required to discuss alternatives that are “inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area” (cleaned up)
• noting that NEFMC had suggested a potential rise in “monitoring costs” due to overlapping requirements
• noting that the government “can deny a specific application altogether if a particularly sensitive area is sought to be developed and mitigation measures are not available” (emphasis added)
• holding “[a]n EIS is undeniably required” at the leasing stage of non-no-surface-occupancy leases
• finding that a challenge to the EIS lacked merit because the environmental groups would be \able to raise more focused criticisms of site analysis at the exploration and permit stages of the leasing program.\
• stating that the agency did not have to perform a “parcel by parcel examination of potential environmental effects” of oil and gas leases in the ocean “because the parcels likely to be affected are not yet known”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).