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

Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158, 1188 (9th Cir. 1997). In otherwords, requiring consideration of the No Action alternative constitutes use of the current level ofactivity as a benchmark. See Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s [NEPA]Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026 (Mar. 23, 1981). However, while informed and meaningfulconsideration of reasonable alternatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme, Friends ofSoutheast’s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir. 1998), this Court notes, andPlaintiffs specifically acknowledge, that “[a] baseline is not an independent legal requirement.”54 Fed. Reg. 23,756 (1989).The Court also notes that even though NEPA is rigorous in its requirements, it does notrequire perfection or the impossible. Envtl. Defense Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 492 F.2d 466,468 n.1 (6th Cir. 1971) (citations omitted). “[N]o matter how well the EIS has been written,someone later can always find fault with it.” Mason County Med. Ass’n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256,265 (6th Cir. 1977). “This does not mean that every [EA] containing factual inaccuracies willhave to be redone.” Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir. 1986). Here, as in allproposed major federal actions, the EIS is intended to provide the decisionmaker “withsufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the action in lightof its environmental consequences and to provide the public with information and an opportunityto participate in the information gathering process.” Northwest Res. Info. Ctr., Inc., 56 F.3d at1064.In order to assess Plaintiffs’ complaints vis-à-vis Defendants’ presentation of the variousbaseline operations information while adhering to a pragmatic standard which requires goodfaith objectivity but avoids “fly specking,” Lathan, 506 F.2d at 693, this Court specifically49