. “whan INET rrins is reached, wher 22 lLions neve teen invested, tne momentun “i oon tne sits if tne [project], not on ths sige oF the ratliz The momentum is not only zZ2nerarea =. tne 2 2zg2ney zlephant. issire to salvage an investment. wants 72 ca the architect of a wnite Plier R22ttor Leveloimen: Co. v. International Union Of Electrical, ‘Reiicz and Vaochine Vorxers, 367 U.S. B. 396, 417 (1961){dissenting opinion). Ine Failures Te Zomoly With NEPA And The Trusteeship Agreement umetion - Some NEPA cases rely on the traditional 4 i) " 4 ay the ra a oO wD oO ul yy | 4 Berzuires Intunctzive Peltier Under The Traditional Standards For Stimiards Tor infunttive relief. Defarnse Tiuncil v. See e.g., Natural Resources Morton, 337 F.Supp. 165 (D.D.C. 1971). The vracgitionai steniersi nes four interrelated factors all of which in girtia une erioriet: sf the issuance of an injunction granting Tne velie? sousnt oy plsintiffs here. FEDERAL FRATTICE, L. a. 3 25.74 (2nd ed. See generally 7 MOORE, 1971). aA ShowingByThe Plaintiff Of Irrevarable Injury 12e Invumeltitn DBcoes Nst Issue - = DliainiiflS asxinz ean injunction becauss co? the derenaant's violation of a statute 13 net ratuires swt snow that otherwise visor morvis will sat in forthwith; all tne. ‘irerecareaclta 23 Inf rt unmiess en injury" means infunction is in this context granted, Tae plaincit? will suffer harn which zannot se rerairei. At least that is encuzn wheres, £2 mere, the only consezuence t7 en ivdunmation is that the defendant mMusv Pract 2 compliance with the statute nion he cuzh=t ts nave done before. To teceier Corr. =Tt, z Ti 2.taT Tht ov. Fitctiin, Tarsii Zein ff if 2°20 ov. cecrle of Sisini. 360 F.2d 692, 598 (2nd. severe inreparabls Prom Sihnini atoil harm is is cuilaicg 1956) immediate irrererstle harm A return to their atoll, however, threatens Tic Elriinians «itn irrecarabdle harm to their health. Toot. Cir. f2rieaream without the environmental Continuation stud: mandated