NEPA Cumulative Impacts. The plaintiffs alleged that the cumulative impacts analysis in the EIS failed to adequately consider the past impacts of the construction of I-94 (an existing Interstate) on minority and low-income communities in the project area. The court noted that CEQ guidance “allows agencies to focus on current aggregate effects of past actions” when conducting a cumulative impacts analysis. Based on that guidance, the court held that the cumulative impact analysis did not need to include a detailed analysis of past actions, such as the construction of I-94. The court also noted that the EIS included a detailed assessment of the CCLRT project’s impacts on low-income and minority communities, as well as discussion of measures to mitigate those impacts, and the study process included extensive outreach to those communities. Based on all of these facts, the court concluded that the cumulative impacts analysis adequately assessed effects on low-income and minority communities. “Business Interruption” Impacts. The plaintiffs also alleged that the FEIS does not adequately address the business interruption impacts caused by the construction of the CCLRT, because the EIS did not “analyze the duration, quality, or scope of construction-related impacts” and failed to identify diminished business revenue as an adverse impact. The court concluded that FTA was required to analyze business-disruption impacts in the EIS, because “lost business revenue … is directly related to the environmental impacts (i.e., physical disruption of the environment) of the CCLRT Project.” The court therefore determined that the FEIS was inadequate and directed FTA to “supplement the FEIS”. Displacement of Existing Residents and Businesses (Gentrification). The plaintiffs alleged that the EIS did not adequately address the “displacement of businesses and residents due to resulting increased property taxes and rents on properties within walking distance of the light rail line.” Specifically, they claimed that the EIS included “no analysis with respect to the timing or extent of property tax increases, the existing residents’ and businesses’ tolerance for tax increases, or the expected number of residents or businesses that are vulnerable to displacement or ‘gentrification.’” The court held that the EIS adequately addressed these issues, because it acknowledged “the potentially adverse effects of market forces” and identified gentrification as a potential impact in the cumulative impacts analysis. The court concluded that the discussion of gentrification impacts was sufficient. Supplemental EIS. The EIS recognized the possibility that three “infill stations” could be developed in the future, but did not fully analyze the impacts of those stations and did not include them in the preferred alternative. After the ROD was issued, local funding was provided for those stations, and FTA then prepared an EA for the infill stations. The plaintiffs argued that the FEIS was deficient as a matter of law because it did not include the infill stations. The court concluded that “Defendants’ decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS for the three additional infill stations, but instead to prepare an EA for these stations, was neither arbitrary nor capricious.” Litigation Procedure Remedy for NEPA Violation. The plaintiffs argued that an injunction should be issued preventing construction of the project until after FTA completed a supplemental EIS to address the issue of business disruption impacts. The court decided that an injunction was not warranted, even though a violation of NEPA had been found, because (1) construction was not imminent; (2) the insufficiency in the EIS could be remedied by further analysis and mitigation; and (3) the benefits of proceeding with the project outweighed any harm that might be caused by allowing it to move forward.