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

Second, Defendants have identified the unavoidable impacts of the low-level overflightsof the RBTI and have conducted a serious and thorough evaluation of the environmentalmitigation options for the RBTI in accordance with NEPA’s process-oriented requirements. TheAR reveals that certain of Defendants’ mitigation measures included (1) limiting annual sortieoperations to 1,560/year; (2) increasing communications opportunities with civil aviators bycreating a toll-free number to Dyess AFB for airspace schedule information; (3) establishing amilitary radar unit and real-time communications between military and general aviation aircraft;(4) reducing the potential for conflict between military flights and local aviation in the vicinity ofthe proposed reentry route on IR-178 by raising the floor of the reentry route to 6,000 feet MSL;(5) developing alternate locations for siting of en route ESS; and (6) limiting aircraft overflightsto 5,000 feet AGL or higher when within three nautical miles of an en route ESS.Third, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ burden is not just to point out possible errors inDefendants’ assumptions and methodology but to prove that the decisionmaker did not have theinformation necessary to make an informed decision. Plaintiffs have not done so.Here, Defendants balanced the effects of the RBTI with the training and operationalconsiderations needed to perform the functions of the RBTI, discussed mitigation measures indetail sufficient to ensure that the environmental consequences had been fairly evaluated, andensured that the decisionmaker had adequate information to make an informed decision. Thus,this Court finds that Defendants have satisfied NEPA’s requirements.45