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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

considered the adequacy, practicability, and reasonableness of Defendants’ baseline informationand balanced Defendants’ information against Plaintiffs’ specific objections, as well as the broadpurposes of NEPA. The Court also considered counsel’s oral arguments presented onJanuary 29, 2003, regarding the appropriate baseline.With respect to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants’ artificially inflated baseline numbersskewed, inter alia, the outcomes of related noise analyses, this Court finds that Defendants’figures as to the scheduled and actual operations of the No Action alternative reasonablyrepresented the status quo against which the remaining alternatives under the RBTI could becompared. This Court believes that the alleged disparity, if any, between the scheduled andactual sortie operations of Alternative A was not of such significance that the numbers misledthe decisionmaker and/or the public when comparing the No Action alternative against the threeremaining RBTI alternatives under consideration.While this Court is cognizant that Defendants have a duty to ensure the accuracy of theinformation placed before the decisionmaker, Van Abbema, 807 F.2d at 642, this Court is notconvinced that Defendants were indifferent to the facts or that Defendants’ presentation of thebaseline information was conflicting, inconsistent, overinclusive, underinclusive, contradictory,arbitrary, capricious, and/or purposefully included inaccurate data. Even assuming, arguendo,that Plaintiffs’ allegations with regard to any alleged discrepancies were true, Plaintiffs havefailed to establish that such discrepancies would have materially affected the decisionmaker’sevaluation of the RBTI. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to theAR’s inadequate baseline must fail.50
The regulations governing an agency’s consideration of “[a]lternatives including theproposed action” provide that[t]his section is the heart of the [EIS]. Based on the informationand analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment(§ 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (§ 1502.16), itshould present the environmental impacts of the proposal and thealternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issuesand providing a clear basis for choice among options by thedecisionmaker and the public. In this section agencies shall:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate allreasonable alternatives, and for alternatives whichwere eliminated from detailed study, briefly discussthe reasons for their having been eliminated.Devote substantial treatment to each alternativeconsidered in detail including the proposed actionso that reviewers may evaluate their comparativemerits.Include reasonable alternatives not within thejurisdiction of the lead agency.Include the alternative of no action.Identify the agency’s preferred alternative oralternatives, if one or more exists, in the draftstatement and identify such alternative in the finalstatement unless another law prohibits theexpression of such a preference.Include appropriate mitigation measures not alreadyincluded in the proposed action or alternatives.40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.“‘Reasonable alternatives’ are those that meet the underlying purpose and need for theproposed action and that would cause a reasonable person to inquire further before choosing aparticular course of action.” 32 C.F.R. § 989.8(b). Thus, the FEIS must provide “a basis for (a)51
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 42 and 43: of the RBTI. Therefore, to the exte
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 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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?