When considering an application for a special use permit to develop and operate a ski resort at Sandy Butte, a mountain in Washington that is part of a national forest, the Forest Service prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS recommended the issuance of a special use permit for what was to be a sixteen-lift ski area, and the forest service issued the permit as recommended. Four organizations sued, claiming that the EIS was inadequate. The lower court held that the EIS was adequate, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the National Environmental Policy Act required that actions be taken to mitigate the adverse effects of a major federal action and that the EIS contain a detailed mitigation plan.
(a) What are the arguments that the EIS should only to take a hard look at the relevant environmental consequences?
(b) What are the arguments that the EIS should propose actions that mitigate the relevant environmental consequences?
(c) What should the EIS include in this situation?