Highlights of U.S. District Court Judge Torrence Boyle´s Order
Granting a Permanent Injunction Against the Navy

February 18, 2005

· Plaintiff´s Motion for Summary Judgment and request for a permanent injunction are granted... The Navy is enjoined from taking any further activity associated with the planning, development, or construction of an OLF in Washington and Beaufort Counties without first complying with its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

· The Navy failed to make an objective determination of the impact of an OLF on the surrounding environment.

· The Navy has chosen to introduce a dramatic alteration to the environment without complying with the law. The Final Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately explore the environmental consequences of an OLF and the evidence in the FEIS does not support the Navy´s conclusion.

· National Security is paramount and deserving of the utmost consideration and deference in the balancing calculation. The Court is not faced with the reconciliation of an acute issue of national security with environmental concerns. Upon a full review of the record, it is apparent the national security interests at stake may still be protected, while at the same time first assuring that the Navy take the time and makes the effort to recognize and consider the effects of their proposed action on the environment.

· NEPA´s purpose is not to generate paperwork  even excellent paperwork - but to foster excellent action. Defendants failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts. The result is a clear error of judgment resulting in a conclusion with no rational basis in the evidence. Merely producing paper, even carefully drafted, is not evidence of the objective analysis required by NEPA.

· Defendants have not fully examined all the relevant factors and have taken the uninformed action that NEPA specifically prohibits.

· Although the Navy´s failure to comply with NEPA is established by its inadequate environmental analysis, the selective examination of data and strained conclusions in the FElS are more understandable when considered in light of the Navy´s need to support a pre-ordained determination that a new OLE would be constructed at Site C.

· Defendants fail to show that the Navy or the public will suffer irreparable harm if a permanent injunction is granted... .The Court´s role is only to ensure that in the face of irreparable harm, the Navy not proceed without first complying with NEPA.