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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not arbitrary and capricious.” Id. (quoting Harris v. United States, 19 F.3d 1090, 1096 (5th Cir.1994)). The “agency’s decision need not be ideal, so long as the agency gave at least minimalconsideration to relevant facts contained in the record.” Id. (quoting Harris, 19 F.3d at 1096).IV.DISCUSSIONPlaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Defendants’ FEISand ROD are in violation of NEPA and the enforcement regulations promulgated by the Councilon Environmental Quality (“CEQ”), as well as Defendants’ own regulations. Plaintiffs complainthat the AR before the Court does not support the decisionmaker’s choice of Alternative B, MTRIR-178, or the RBTI as a whole, and Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the final decision toapprove the modification and expansion of the existing MTRs and the Lancer MOA.Defendants respond by arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to identify any major federalaction involving IR-178 that would significantly affect the environment adversely and thatPlaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that approval of the RBTI was arbitary,capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.Judicial ReviewNEPA was enacted to establish a national policy “to promote efforts which will preventor eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare ofman; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to theNation; and to establish a [CEQ].” 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (1994). 3In order to achieve thesesubstantive goals, NEPA requires compliance with certain procedures before and during the3Hereinafter cited as “NEPA § . . .”16
undertaking of any project that affects the environment. See NEPA § 4332. See also Robertsonv. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (explaining that NEPA’s goals areachieved through “action-forcing” procedures which do not mandate particular results, but“simply prescribe[] the necessary process”). Thus, “[i]f the adverse environmental effects of theproposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPAfrom deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350.Under NEPA, adequate identification and evaluation of the adverse environmental effectsof the proposed action require an agency to take a hard look at the environmental consequencesof its actions, which includes a detailed EIS on(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)the environmental impact of the proposed action,any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should theproposal be implemented,alternatives to the proposed action,the relationship between local short-term uses of man’senvironment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-termproductivity, andany irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which wouldbe involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.NEPA § 4332(2)(C). See also 40 C.F.R. § 1500, et seq. (2002) (setting forth the CEQregulations expanding upon the appropriate form and content of an EIS).An EIS is intended to provide decisionmakers “with sufficiently detailed information toaid in determining whether to proceed with the action in light of its environmental consequencesand to provide the public with information and an opportunity to participate in the informationgathering process.” Northwest Res. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d17
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 10 and 11: Eleventh:Violation of NEPA, Commitm
Page 12 and 13: October 22, 2001. Plaintiffs’ Fir
Page 14 and 15: Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summ
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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?