for Partial Summ. J. on Counts II-IV and VII-VIII of the First Am. Compl. (“Pis.’ Mem. in Supp.”) at 6.) Defendants counter that the level of specificity of the EIS analysis was appropriate for the leasing stage given the available information and the phased nature of oil and gas development, and that NEPA and the CEQ regulations allow for deferring further analysis until more information is available. Defendants state that the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) has followed an accepted procedure in using for the EIS all the currently available information to analyze the foreseeable site-specific impacts of leasing in the planning area, while still recognizing that additional information concerning the precise locations where the site-specific impacts may occur wi 1227 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The action at issue here — BLM’s decision to
holding that a court cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly holding that like executory contracts leases constituted property of the debtors estate and could be sold pursuant to sections 363b and 363m holding that leases which do not reserve to the government the absolute right to prevent all surfacedisturbing activity cannot be sold without preparation of an eis holding that a prosecutors preparation and filing of an information and a motion for an arrest warrant are protected by absolute immunity holding that the right to exclude so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right falls within this category of interests that the government cannot take without compensation