[8] The public outrage in reaction to the Santa Barbara oil spill in early 1969 occurred just as the NEPA legislation was being drafted in Congress.

[10] In addition, as the contribution of Indiana political scientist Lynton Caldwell shows, concern for the environmental recklessness of international development programs in the 1950s and 1960s also drove the thinking behind NEPA.

[11] In 2015 a United States District Court provided a documented concise background of NEPA being created to protect the environment from actions involving the Federal government[12] as follows: Following nearly a century of rapid economic expansion, population growth, industrialization, and urbanization, it had become clear by the late 1960s that American progress had an environmental cost.

[13] A congressional investigation into the matter yielded myriad evidence indicating a gross mismanagement of the country's environment and resources, most notably at the hands of the federal government.

"[19]The preamble to NEPA reads: To declare national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

The act also promotes the CEQ to advise the President in the preparation of an annual report on the progress of federal agencies in implementing NEPA.

If it is determined that the proposed action is covered under NEPA, there are three levels of analysis that a federal agency must undertake to comply with the law.

11991 [22] directs the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue "regulations to Federal agencies for the implementation of the procedural provisions of" NEPA [22]: 5371 Sec.

§ 771.115(a) Class I actions such as a new controlled access freeway or a highway project of four or more lanes on a new location significantly affect the environment and therefore require an Environmental Impact Statement.

§ 771.115(b) and § 771.117(c) Class II actions such as construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, planning, noise barriers, and landscaping normally do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect and therefore may be categorically exempt unless there are unusual circumstances as provided in 23 C.F.R.

A Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) is a list of actions an agency has determined do not individually or cumulatively significantly affect the quality of the human environment (40 C.F.R.

In 2003 the National Environmental Policy Task Force found agencies "indicated some confusion about the level of analysis and documentation required to use an approved categorical exclusion".

"[29]: 75632–75633  The CEQ specifically cites the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill as an example why agencies need to periodically review their Categorical Exclusions "in light of evolving or changing conditions that might present new or different environmental impacts or risks.

§ 1500.2 states: "Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible: ... (d) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment."

[33]If no substantial effects on the environment are found after investigation and the drafting of an EA, the agency must produce a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

If it is determined that a proposed federal action does not fall within a designated CatEx or does not qualify for a FONSI, then the responsible agency must prepare an EIS.

The difficulty of stopping a bureaucratic steam roller, once started, still seems to us, after reading Village of Gambell, a perfectly proper factor for a district court to take into account in assessing that risk, on a motion for a preliminary injunction.To have Article III standing to maintain a federal court case at least one individual plaintiff must have an injury caused by the defendant and that injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable decision as stated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed.

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)).

2d 542 (1987) on page 545: Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i. e., irreparable.

As we have previously concluded, the state entities involved in this case have "jumped the gun" on the environmental issues by entering into contractual obligations that anticipated a pro forma result.

He directed the CEQ to issue guidelines for the proper preparation of an EIS and to assemble and coordinate federal programs related to environmental quality.

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter by executive order 11991[22] authorized the CEQ to adopt regulations rather than simple guidelines on EIS preparation.

[26] CEQ regulations call for agencies and other federal actors to integrate NEPA requirements with other planning obligations as early as possible in the process.

The expansion was abandoned by TC Energy in 2021 after delays including the rejection of its review under NEPA, in the case Indigenous Environmental Network v. U.S. Department of State.

[40] The most common consequence imposed by courts for violations of NEPA is a mandated repeat of whichever environmental review or report was found to have been insufficient.

[42] It can also get in the way of environmental justice: In New York, congestion pricing is predicted to improve air quality, mass transit ridership, and bus service.

[46] Various transmission lines necessary to transition to clean energy have been cancelled due to NEPA-related litigation,[47][48][49] as well as the Calico Solar project in the Mojave desert.

"[51] This executive order directs CEQ to use its "authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process", requires agencies to "establish procedures for a regular review and update of categorical exclusions", and revokes President Obama's Executive Order 13690 addressing Flood Risk Management by including science on climate change.

The rule also exempts a number of projects from review entirely and prevents the consideration of cumulative environmental impacts, including those caused by climate change.

[52][53][54] On April 20, 2022, CEQ issued the Phase 1 Final Rule to restore regulatory provisions that were in effect prior to the modifications made during the Trump administration.