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

This Court also finds similarly unavailing Plaintiffs’ assertions that Defendantsinadequately analyzed the socioeconomic effects of the RBTI. Although CEQ regulationsrequire agencies to ensure the professional and scientific integrity of environmental informationand emphasize the need for multidisciplinary analysis, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.1(b) and 1502.24,“economic and social impacts clearly occupy a lesser tier of importance in an EIS than do purelyenvironmental or ecological concerns.” Ass’n Concerned About Tomorrow, Inc. v. Dole, 610 F.Supp. 1101, 1111 (N.D. Tex. 1985).Here, Plaintiffs argued that the socioeconomic analysis in the FEIS was inaccurate,incomplete, and in violation of NEPA. However, this Court notes that the AR reveals thatDefendants (1) relied on noise impact analyses to measure the impacts of the RBTI on residentialand recreational land use; (2) utilized relevant population, housing, employment, and earningsdata; and (3) discussed comparative residential valuation data and tourism earnings data in eachregion of influence. Because NEPA only requires a “reasonably thorough discussion that fostersinformed decisionmaking, not a complete evaluation,” Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442,1462 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotations omitted), it appears to this Court that Defendants havemore than met NEPA’s requirements to discuss the relevant socioeconomic impacts of the RBTI.In addition, the Fifth Circuit has long held that the “[d]etermination of economic benefitsand costs that are tangential to environmental consequences are within th[e] wide area of agencydiscretion.” S. La. Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1011 (5th Cir. 1980). NEPArequires, at most, “a narrowly focused, indirect review of the economic assumptions underlying afederal project described in an impact statement.” Id. See also Sierra Club v. Sigler, 695 F.2d957, 974-75 (5th Cir. 1983) (finding that an agency need only consider “important” information33