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

As to the potential impact on Plaintiffs’ property values, Plaintiffs argue that the RBTI’soverflights will adversely affect the leasehold values for hunting, hiking, bird watching,camping, eco-tourism, and other recreational activities on Plaintiffs’ properties. As aconsequence, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ RBTI will adversely impact the income stream orconsumptive use of the underlying properties owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further complainthat the RBTI’s excessive noise events will negatively implicate the marketability of Plaintiffs’underlying properties. Indeed, Plaintiffs note that Defendants acknowledge in the AR that“increased aircraft noise does appear to lower property values.”Finally, Plaintiffs charge that Defendants failed to take a hard look at the concomitantaeronautical and airspace management impacts of Alternative B’s Lancer MOA. Specifically,Plaintiffs contend that Defendants did not incorporate into the FEIS the FAA’s July 28, 2000,“Combined Aeronautical Study,” which identified, inter alia, the economic impacts on airports,carriers, fixed base operators, and other civil aviation activities. Plaintiffs complain thatDefendants did not consider (1) that many fixed base operators and transient services providersmight be forced to other locations because of the airspace complexity resulting from the RBTI;(2) that the Lancer MOA could adversely impact the costs for commercial air carriers operatingout of Lubbock International Airport; and (3) that the Lancer MOA could negatively impact theregional economy of the City of Lubbock, Texas. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’FEIS merely notes that under Alternative B the “FAA would need to ensure conflicts betweenproposed ATCAA and intersecting jet routes are avoided.”Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants failed to make available to the RBTI decisionmaker,or the public, an FAA cumulative impact assessment which determined that the RBTI’s creation25