Memorandum Opinion and Order - US District Court - Northern ...

(1) whether the agency in good faith objectively has taken a hard lookat the environmental consequences of a proposed action andalternatives;(2) whether the EIS provides detail sufficient to allow those who didnot participate in its preparation to understand and consider thepertinent environmental influences involved; and(3) whether the EIS explanation of alternatives is sufficient to permit areasoned choice among different courses of action.Miss. River Basin Alliance, 230 F.3d at 174.Information satisfying these criteria must be in the EIS and the conclusions upon whichthe EIS is based must be supported by evidence contained in the AR. Id. at 174-75. “[T]hejudicial concern is whether the [EIS] is a good faith, objective, and reasonable presentation ofthe subject areas mandated by NEPA[] and that the court should not second-guess the experts.”Manygoats v. Kleppe, 558 F.2d 556, 560 (10th Cir. 1977). A court “should intervene only whenit is clearly determined that the agency’s determinations were irrational or unreasonable.” ITTFed. Servs. Corp., 45 Fed. Cl. at 184.A. Hard LookPlaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to make available to the decisionmaker detailedinformation concerning significant adverse environmental effects in connection with livestock,wildlife, wake vortices, socioeconomics, and airspace use and management. Without suchinformation, Plaintiffs complain that informed public participation and rational decisionmakingwere not possible.Plaintiffs specifically complain that a sufficiently detailed analysis of the RBTI’s adverseeffects on livestock and poultry operations was not conducted. Plaintiffs insist that a countylevelanalysis should have been undertaken by Defendants to consider the potential adverse23