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

However, when considered in conjunction with Alternative B’s operational superiority,Defendants selected Alternative B as the RBTI’s preferred action alternative.In the final analysis, NEPA’s requirement with regard to an agency’s consideration ofalternatives is subject to a rule of reasonableness. The rule of reason “guides both the choice ofalternatives as well as the extent to which the [EIS] must discuss each alternative.” Am. Rivers v.Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 201 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting City of Carmelby-the-Seav. United States DOT, 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997)). Under the rule ofreason, Defendants need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable ones. 40C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). NEPA “does not require agencies to analyze the environmentalconsequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . .impractical or ineffective. . . . What is required is information sufficient to permit a reasonedchoice of alternatives as far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Colo. Envtl. Coalition v.Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting All Indian Pueblo Council v. UnitedStates, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir. 1992)).“An [EIS] may not be held insufficient by a court merely because the agency has failed todiscuss in it every conceivable alternative to the proposed project.” Ass’n Concerned AboutTomorrow, Inc. v. Slater, 40 F. Supp. 2d 823, 832 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (citing Vt. Yankee NuclearPower Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 554 (1978)). NEPA requires onlythat reasonable alternatives be evaluated. NEPA § 4332(2)(C). Alternatives that do notaccomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable. Colo. Envtl. Coalition, 185 F.3d at1174-75. See also City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F.3d 448, 456 (8th Cir. 2000).54