Assessment (“EA”) rather than a more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), which is normally required for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” Tree Boa, 918 F.Supp. at 891-92. Judge Finch concluded that the plaintiffs’ had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim, because, as FEMA had adequately considered the environmental impact of the housing project and provided for mitigation measures to reduce “to an insignificant level” any adverse effects on the Tree Boa, its Environmental Assessment satisfied NEPA’s requirements. In disposing of plaintiffs’ ESA claims in turn, Judge Finch concluded that FEMA and FWS had conducted an adequate § 7 consultation, as requir d 1396, 1399 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Restatement of Judgments, supra, § 20, cmt.
holding that denial of amendment is within discretion of trial court recognizing such limitations in dicta holding that everything after denial of jurisdiction is dicta pure and simple recognizing that alternative holdings are not dicta recognizing that supreme courts conclusion was pure dicta but following it because it would be imprudent for us to ignore it