# Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 1, 1989 · 490 U.S. 332

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431665

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERTSON, CHIEF OF THE FOREST SERVICE, Et Al. v. METHOW VALLEY CITIZENS COUNCIL Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 1, 1989
- **Citations:** 490 U.S. 332; 19 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20743; 57 U.S.L.W. 4497; 29 ERC (BNA) 1497; 109 S. Ct. 1835; 104 L. Ed. 2d 351; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2160
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** Stevens, Brennan
- **Cited by:** 1,393 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Sierra Club v. United States Forest Service, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (2008).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431665

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that NEPA “ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts; it also guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger a…
- stating that the “requirement that an EIS contain a detailed discussion of possible mitigation measures flows both from the language of [NEPA] and, more expressly, from CEQ’s implementing regulations” and that the “omission of a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitig…
- holding that the National Forest Service's interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act was entitled to deference and reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals because it failed to give adequate deference to the Forest Service's interpretation of its own regula…
- explaining that the mitigation discussion in an environmental impact statement need not contain a “complete mitigation plan,” especially where impacts “cannot be mitigated unless nonfederal government agencies [with jurisdiction over those effects] take appropriate action”
- explaining that the USAF will monitor and remediate PFOS/PFOA contamination detected during construction, including by ceasing construction work to satisfy notice and consultation requirements, implement protective barriers, or take other necessary measures

## Opinion text

Justice Brennan,
concurring.
I write separately to highlight the Court’s observation that “one important ingredient of an EIS is the discussion of steps that can be taken to mitigate adverse environmental consequences.” Ante, at 351.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431665. Public record. Not legal advice.