NEPA Segmentation. The plaintiffs argued that the Corps had improperly segmented the 1.86-mile section from the Northern Beltline as a whole. While the case involved a challenge to the scope of the Corps’ analysis, the court applied the criteria in FHWA’s regulations (23 CFR 771.111(f)) when determining whether the project had been improperly segmented. The court held that the Corps had not improperly segmented the project because the 1.86-mile section had independent utility, connected logical termini, and did not limit consideration of alternatives for future sections of the 50-mile Outer Beltline project. In reaching this conclusion, the court showed deference to the agencies’ assessment of independent utility and logical termini: “Plaintiff argues that the traffic counts do not warrant the increase to a six-lane highway. Defendants correctly respond that the regulations only require independent utility, not maximum utility. The evidence establishes that the SR 79/75 segment increases the utility of the existing roadway network by providing access between well-traveled highways. Further, the SR 79/75 segment will relieve traffic on arterial and city streets. Whether four or six lanes are appropriate is a discretionary planning function of Defendants that the court will not disturb on this record. … “This project also satisfies the logical termini requirement because the termini are located at nodes of commercial and traffic activity. However, even if the court disagreed, it is not for it is not for the court to determine what is the most logical termini, only that the termini chosen by the agency are logical and that the agency did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in choosing the project termini. The court finds, with the benefit of the record, that this requirement is met.” With regard to the project’s effect on consideration of alternatives for future projects, the court noted that the initial 1.86-mile section was only 3.71% of the total project’s length and that “the remaining 48.24 miles are unconstrained as to locus as will be determined by future planning.” Therefore, the court held that the Corps’ approval of the initial 1.86 mile section would not foreclose consideration of alternatives for the remaining sections of the Northern Beltline. Adoption of FHWA NEPA Documents. The plaintiffs also challenged the Corps’ adoption of FHWA’s NEPA documents, including the 1997 EIS and the 2006 and 2012 reevaluations. The plaintiffs argued that the Corps was required to conduct a site-specific wetland delineation throughout the entire corridor, rather than relying on the wetlands analysis in FHWA’s NEPA documents. The court held that it was permissible for the Corps to adopt another agency’s NEPA document, and that the Corps’ adoption of FHWA’s NEPA documents – which considered the entire Northern Beltline – was sufficient to fulfill the Corps’ obligations to consider impacts of the Beltline as a whole before issuing an approval for the initial 1.86-mile section. Litigation Procedure Preliminary Injunction. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction because it found that the plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on the merits, but also because the plaintiffs had failed to show that they would be irreparably harmed by the 1.86-mile project and had failed to show that the harm from allowing that project to go forward would be outweighed by the harm from delaying the project. The court noted that: “[E]ven a likely NEPA violation does not automatically call for injunctive relief especially if the balance of harms points the other way. In certain circumstances the court may withhold injunctive relief when it would harm the public interest, even if doing so would cause irreparable injury to the movant.” “[Plaintiff] assumes that the public interest is best served by not developing the Beltline Project. Not so; the public also has an interest in development that will promote job growth and economic stability, and Plaintiff does not establish a factual weight of harm to override the public interest in development.” “Though not controlling, consideration must be given to the fact that substantial funds have already been expended to begin construction on the 1.86–mile project, including preparation for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation work. Delaying construction would have significant financial impacts on Defendants and the public treasury, especially if the bid process has to be repeated.” “Ultimately, the public’s need for adequate transportation infrastructure outweighs Plaintiff’s desire to prevent any change to this 1.86–mile area of the Black Warrior River environment.”