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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Eleventh:Violation of NEPA, Commitment of Resources Prior to Final AgencyActionPlaintiffs complain that Defendants undertook actions committing Defendants’ resourcesprior to making a decision based on the FEIS. Plaintiffs complain that Defendants’ prematureactions prejudiced the selection of alternatives and failed to use the FEIS as a basis for thedecisionmaking process.E. Plaintiffs’ Prayers for ReliefJudicial Review/Declaratory Judgment/RemandPlaintiffs seek judicial review and ask this Court to declare (1) Defendants’ FEIS andROD arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law; (2) Defendants’ activities onIR-178 to be in violation of NEPA; and (3) Defendants’ implementation of the RBTI to be inviolation of the NCA. Plaintiffs ask this Court to remand this matter to Defendants forpreparation of NEPA documentation which adequately describes and assesses the completescope of the effects of the RBTI and which demonstrates complete compliance with the NCA.Injunctive Relief/MandamusPlaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin (1) all military training activities authorized by theFEIS and/or ROD, as well as those currently conducted on IR-178, pending completion of andcirculation of documentation complying with NEPA; (2) Defendants’ decision to implement theRBTI unless an FEIS is prepared which addresses the full scope of Defendants’ proposals,including interrelated, connected, cumulative, or similar actions; (3) Defendants’ decision tosubmit an application to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) for modification of MTRIR-178 and establishment of the Lancer MOA within New Mexico and west Texas; (4)Defendants’ activities that are in violation of the NCA; and (5) Defendants’ proposed military10
training operations from taking place in MTR IR-178 and the Lancer MOA to the extent thoseoperations violate the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution.Plaintiffs also ask this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing Defendants tocomply with the requirements set forth under NEPA and the NCA.Litigation CostsPursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Plaintiffs ask this Court toaward to Plaintiffs all costs of litigation, including expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees.F. Defendants’ Affirmative AnswersDefendants affirmatively answer that (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction over all or part ofthe subject matter of this action; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring all or part of this action; (3)Plaintiffs have not exhausted the administrative remedies available to gain the relief sought in allor part of this action; (4) all or part of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to state a claimupon which relief can be granted; (5) the issues in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint are notripe for consideration by this or any other court; (6) all or part of Plaintiffs’ First AmendedComplaint is barred by the statute of limitations; and (7) all or part of Plaintiffs’ First AmendedComplaint is barred by the defense of laches.PleadingsII.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDPlaintiffs’ Complaint was originally filed in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Texas, Pecos Division, on March 29, 2001. Defendants’ Original Answer toPlaintiffs’ Complaint was filed June 7, 2001. An Order Transferring Action from the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, to this Court was filed11
Page 3 and 4: Dale and Susan Toone; Tim and Rexan
Page 5: would cause a potential disturbance
Page 8 and 9: Fourth:Violation of NEPA, Failure t
Page 12 and 13: October 22, 2001. Plaintiffs’ Fir
Page 14 and 15: Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summ
Page 16 and 17: not arbitrary and capricious.” Id
Page 18 and 19: 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 1995). The EIS
Page 20 and 21: egan to expand the definition of th
Page 22 and 23: data and articulate a satisfactory
Page 24 and 25: impacts on livestock and poultry pr
Page 26 and 27: of the Lancer MOA would have a sign
Page 28 and 29: values beneath MTRs and/or MOAs. Ra
Page 30 and 31: specking.” Lathan v. Brinegar, 50
Page 32 and 33: this Court’s review of the AR rev
Page 34 and 35: elevant to a “significant” effe
Page 36 and 37: evidence does not invalidate the [a
Page 38 and 39: analysis, especially in light of De
Page 40 and 41: following which Defendants held ano
Page 42 and 43: of the RBTI. Therefore, to the exte
Page 44 and 45: 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20.D. Reducing or
Page 46 and 47: D. Untimely Participation of FAAPla
Page 48 and 49: and use of IR-178. Consequently, Pl
Page 50 and 51: considered the adequacy, practicabi
Page 52 and 53: evaluation of the benefits of the p
Page 54 and 55: However, when considered in conjunc
Page 56 and 57: Accordingly, this Court finds that
Page 58 and 59: Judicial Determination“The purpos
Page 60 and 61:
Here, this Court finds that Defenda
Page 62:
Further, after considering all the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?