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

Judicial DeterminationIn the FEIS, an agency must “discuss at appropriate points . . . any responsible opposingview which was not adequately discussed in the [DEIS] and shall indicate the agency’s responseto the issue raised.” Id. § 1502.9(b). However, an agency “need not set forth at full length, theviews with which it disagrees, all that is required is a meaningful reference that identifies theproblem at hand for the responsible official.” Citizens for Mass Transit, Inc. v. Adams, 492 F.Supp. 304, 311 (E.D. La. 1980).After thorough review, the Court finds that the AR contains a plethora of documentationwhich belies Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants failed to consider and/or respond tocomments made by the public during the scoping process. Not only is the AR replete withexamples of the more than 1,500 comments received by Defendants as a result of the scopingprocess, but the AR, FEIS, and ROD also reflect (1) specific responses to those who expressedconcerns; (2) mitigation measures taken by Defendants in response to those concerns; (3)extensive clarification of the critiques regarding biological resources; (4) additional informationon the data sources used in the affected environment, including aircraft pollutants; and (5)expanded analyses of the startle effect on livestock and wildlife.This Court cannot agree with Plaintiffs’ contentions that Defendants summarilydismissed the concerns expressed by those participating in the scoping process relevant tolivestock, unburned fuel emissions, the effects of wake vortices and jet blasts, and the potentialimpact on property values. For the most part, it appears to this Court that Plaintiffs’ argumentstaking issue with Defendants’ responses to public comments merely re-urge Plaintiffs’ previousarguments relevant to Defendants’ failure to take a hard look at the environmental consequences41