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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the RBTI. Therefore, to the extent applicable to Plaintiffs’ issues with regard to livestock,wake vortices, and property values, the Court directs the parties to the Court’s discussion setforth supra in “A. Hard Look.”This Court also is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants summarilydismissed criticisms regarding aircraft emissions for each of the alternatives considered underthe RBTI. Indeed, the FEIS indicates that Defendants considered a wide range of aircraftexhaust criteria pollutants, including analysis of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, total suspended particulates, ozone, and lead. The AR clearlyreflects pollution studies which showed that, although emissions from military aircraft wouldincrease slightly in Alternative B, such emissions would be highly dispersed, would notnoticeably degrade air quality, and would contribute only fractions of the allowable amounts setforth under federal standards. Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendants appropriatelyconsidered and responded to responsible opposing views. Thus, Plaintiffs have presented nobasis for setting aside the FEIS based on Defendants’ failure to adequately respond to publiccomments.C. Mitigation MeasuresPlaintiffs complain that Defendants’ FEIS provided only a perfunctory listing of possiblemitigation measures which lacked supporting data. In addition, Plaintiffs claim that themitigation measures agreed to between Defendants and the FAA were improperly developedoutside the NEPA process, were not subject to public scrutiny, and completely failed to provideappropriate mitigation measures for wildlife, impacts on property values, damages from wakevortices, and livestock and ranching impacts.42
Defendants respond that the FEIS specifically articulated mitigation measures to reducethe potential for adverse effects pertinent to aircraft and airspace operations, land use, culturalresources, and biological resources. Further, Defendants argue that the mitigation actions in theFEIS detailed a summary of the community/agency concerns, the types of action to be taken, theresultant environmental outcomes, the agencies responsible for the actions, and the time framewithin which each action was to be implemented. Finally, Defendants argue that the ROD alsocontained a discussion and description of the mitigation measures and management actions to betaken.Judicial DeterminationAn EIS must discuss mitigation in detail sufficient to ensure that environmentalconsequences have been fairly evaluated but need not contain a complete mitigation plan that isactually formulated and adopted. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 352. See also Laguna Greenbelt, Inc.v. United States DOT, 42 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1994) (determining that NEPA does not requirea fully developed plan which mitigates all environmental harm before an agency can act). “Evenmore significantly, it would be inconsistent with NEPA’s reliance on procedural mechanisms–asopposed to substantive, result-based standards–to demand the presence of a fully developed planthat will mitigate environmental harm before an agency can act.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 353.For purposes of NEPA, “mitigation” is defined to includeA. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certainaction or parts of an action.B. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude ofthe action and its implementation.C. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, orrestoring the affected environment.43
Page 3 and 4: Dale and Susan Toone; Tim and Rexan
Page 5: would cause a potential disturbance
Page 8 and 9: Fourth:Violation of NEPA, Failure t
Page 10 and 11: Eleventh:Violation of NEPA, Commitm
Page 12 and 13: October 22, 2001. Plaintiffs’ Fir
Page 14 and 15: Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summ
Page 16 and 17: not arbitrary and capricious.” Id
Page 18 and 19: 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 1995). The EIS
Page 20 and 21: egan to expand the definition of th
Page 22 and 23: data and articulate a satisfactory
Page 24 and 25: impacts on livestock and poultry pr
Page 26 and 27: of the Lancer MOA would have a sign
Page 28 and 29: values beneath MTRs and/or MOAs. Ra
Page 30 and 31: specking.” Lathan v. Brinegar, 50
Page 32 and 33: this Court’s review of the AR rev
Page 34 and 35: elevant to a “significant” effe
Page 36 and 37: evidence does not invalidate the [a
Page 38 and 39: analysis, especially in light of De
Page 40 and 41: following which Defendants held ano
Page 44 and 45: 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20.D. Reducing or
Page 46 and 47: D. Untimely Participation of FAAPla
Page 48 and 49: and use of IR-178. Consequently, Pl
Page 50 and 51: considered the adequacy, practicabi
Page 52 and 53: evaluation of the benefits of the p
Page 54 and 55: However, when considered in conjunc
Page 56 and 57: Accordingly, this Court finds that
Page 58 and 59: Judicial Determination“The purpos
Page 60 and 61: Here, this Court finds that Defenda
Page 62: Further, after considering all the

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?