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

CONCLUSIONThis Court has made a conscientious effort to fully review the RBTI FEIS, ROD, AR andany allowed supplementation, and all other relevant data and material which was available to thedecisionmaker, as well as each objection raised and counterargument made by the parties. In sodoing, the Court has purposefully conducted its review with unwavering adherence to theimportant goals sought to be achieved by NEPA.Although this Court finds that Defendants’ documentation sometimes suffered from aslight subjective bias, the Court nevertheless carefully applied the rule of reason and practicalityand fully considered the relevant environmental and economic factors presented by Defendants’AR, FEIS, and ROD. As a result, this Court is convinced that Defendants adequately consideredthe potential adverse environmental consequences of the RBTI.In determining that Defendants have satisfied the requirements of NEPA, this Court findsthat (1) Defendants in good faith objectively took a hard look at the environmental consequencesof the proposed RBTI and alternatives; (2) the FEIS provided detail sufficient to allow those whodid not participate in its preparation to understand and consider the pertinent environmentalinfluences involved; and (3) the FEIS’s explanation of alternatives was sufficient to permit areasoned choice among different courses of action. Therefore, this Court finds that Defendants’decision to implement the RBTI was made in good faith after consideration of sufficient possiblealternatives, mitigation measures, and other relevant factors and that the decision was notarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in conformance with the law.Therefore, after considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, this Court DENIESPlaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.61