The standard for determining whether to prepare an EIS is whether "the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, show that the proposed project may significantly degrade some human environmental factor."

Otherwise, the BLM "could merely ignore the requirements of NEPA, build its structures before a case gets to court, and then hide behind the mootness doctrine."

The court went on to say: "The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that `public lands' means lands which are subject to `sale or other disposal under general laws,'... and does not include `[a] ll land, to which any claims or rights of others have attached.'"

Moreover, an EIS will be found to be adequate if it was prepared in good faith and contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.

In this regard the Board's view "does not have to be the only reasonable construction or the interpretation that a court would choose if first presented with the question; it only must be a reasonable interpretation."

The purpose of the NEPA review process is two-fold: “First, it places upon [the action] agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.”

—requiring the Bonneville Power Administration to comply with the substantive standards of Washington State's siting act—but not its procedural hurdles—where an applicable statute expressly required "compliance with State standards

—finding that a suit to enjoin construction of a power line was not moot because, although it had been built, it could still be removed

T] he preparation of an EIS ensures that other officials, Congress, and the public can evaluate the environmental consequences independently

If we hold that the environmental review was inadequate, "the agenc [ies] would have to correct the decision-making process..."