will be set aside.” High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 640 (9th Cir.2004). 8. However, a court may not issue an injunction under NEPA that would cause a violation of other statutory-requirements, such as those found in section 7 of the ESA. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 497, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001) (“A district court cannot, for example, override Congress’ policy choice, articulated in a statute, as to what behavior should be prohibited”). Nor should an injunction issue under NEPA when enjoining government action would result in more harm to the environment than denying injunctive relief. Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240, 1250 (9th Cir.1984); Am. Motorcyclist Ass’n v. Watt, 714 F.2d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc’y v. Schlapfer, 518
recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest holding that any member of the general public can initiate an action to raise issues involving the public trust in air water or other natural resources of the state holding public interest does not favor granting an injunction where government action allegedly in violation of nepa might actually jeopardize natural resources holding on motion for preliminary injunction that balance of hardships tipped in favor of public holding that inevitable harm of limiting public resources does not trump lawful department action