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

Defendants’ avowal that “[c]ompliance with the Endangered Species Act for [the] RBTI hasbeen and will continue to be part of the broader consultation effort.”Further, the FEIS sets forth the results of Defendants’ analysis of the impact of aircraftemissions on threatened wildlife for each alternative. The analysis concluded that emissionswould produce minimal quantities of criteria pollutants and that ground-level pollutants wouldbe fractions of federal and state standards. Finally, the Court’s holistic review of the AR revealsthat Defendants consulted continuously with the USFWS throughout the RBTI NEPA process,including formal comments on the DEIS; a status meeting to discuss the endangered speciesissues; and numerous telephone conferences, letters, and e-mail communications.While Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to disagree with Defendants’ conclusions, thisCourt finds that the AR belies Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants ignored or otherwise failedto consider the adverse effects on the underlying ranchland, livestock, and wildlife. Indeed,although Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’ conclusions regarding the information contained inthe AR, it is obvious to this Court that Defendants considered the issues raised and thereafterplaced before the final decisionmaker adequate information from which to make an informeddecision. This Court also notes that Defendants candidly acknowledged the potential of adverseeffects to the underlying lifestock and wildlife. NEPA requires nothing more. See Robertson,490 U.S. at 350 (concluding that “[i]f the adverse environmental effects of the proposed actionare adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from decidingthat other values outweigh the environmental costs”).As to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants inadequately analyzed the safety issues raisedduring the scoping process regarding the effects of wake vortices generated by the RBTI aircraft,31