With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could be revoked if the findings of the EA suggested an EIS was warranted, issuance of the permits in question did not constitute an “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources” prior to performance of an EA, and therefore does not run afoul of NEPA. See Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d at 1143 (regulations require agencies to prepare NEPA documents, including environmental assessments, “before any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.”) (citations omitted). However, defendants overlook the fact that, to the extent that permits contemplated by the EA were outstanding during the performance of the EA, states could have killed mute swans, and no doubt in some cases did, thereby engaging in an “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840

A: holding that a government agency seeking to enforce a prior order regarding prepetition acts of a debt or is not bound by a confirmed plan a if such agency fails to participate in the confirmation of such plan b if the obligations that such agency seeks to impose upon such debtor do not constitute claims c notwithstanding that such plan purports to treat such debtors obligations to such agency and d since it thus is not a named entity within  1141a
B: holding that such an impermissible commitment occurred where federal agency entered into a contract with an indigenous tribe to authorize and fund whaling activities prior to preparing an environmental assessment of the impacts of such activities
C: holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity
D: holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body
B.