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

depicting the track and lifespan of a typical wake vortex consistent with the B-52 testsconducted, Defendants argue that a B-1 would also be expected to produce similar low windspeeds at ground level. Moreover, Defendants note that they have engaged in low-level flightoperations for more than fifty years without wake vortex damage to structures becoming asignificant issue and, because the RBTI raises the floor of IR-178 from 200 feet AGL to 300 feetAGL, the likelihood that adverse effects would now result from any wing turbulence is furtherdecreased.Defendants also dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that the non-speculative socioeconomicimpacts reasonably foreseeable and related to the RBTI were not adequately identified anddiscussed. Rather, Defendants argue that the AR reflects that the socioeconomic merits anddrawbacks of the various RBTI alternatives were fully considered by Defendants. Further,Defendants contend that not only is a formal cost/benefit analysis not required by NEPA, but acost/benefit analysis was never contemplated by Defendants, because neither the operationalconsiderations nor the environmental consequences of the RBTI lent themselves to theassignment of specific socioeconomic values. Instead, Defendants argue that identifying themerits and drawbacks so as to allow meaningful consideration by the public and thedecisionmaker fully discharged Defendants’ duty under NEPA.As to Plaintiffs’ claim that the RBTI could adversely affect property values, Defendantsclaim that the studies of land values and noise in the vicinity of civil airports, as cited byPlaintiffs, as well as the studies of properties surrounding military installations included in theAR, are inapposite to the arguments made regarding the effects of aircraft noise on property27