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

evaluation of the benefits of the proposed project in light of its environmental risks, and (b)comparison of the net balance for the proposed project with the environmental risks presented byalternative courses of action.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 833(D.C. Cir. 1972). “The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an [EIS]inadequate.” Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 120 F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir.1997).Of course, this Court recognizes that an agency’s discussion of environmental effectsneed not be an exhaustive “crystal ball” inquiry; but Defendants are required to present sufficientinformation to permit a reasoned choice of alternatives. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 458F.2d at 836-37. Here, the FEIS indicates that Defendants examined seventy-two routes withinapproximately 600 nautical miles of Dyess and Barksdale AFBs. Of those seventy-two routes,Defendants carried forward three action alternatives which met the 600 nautical mile radiuslimitation, the slope and terrain variability requirement, and the 50 nautical mile low-angle lineof-sightESS accessibility.Although coarse and fine screening by Defendants indicated that Alternatives B and Chad approximately equal potential for being identified as the preferred operational alternative,input from the FAA indicated that the modification and increased use of the proposed TexonMOA/ATCAA within Alternative C (1) could significantly impair IFR traffic; (2) would requirerigid management with little or no capability to support any flight changes or delayed operations;(3) would necessitate rerouting of civil and commercial aircraft using affected jet routes andfederal airways; and (4) could possibly require restructuring of the airspace. Consequently,Defendants determined that the operational flexibility of Alternative C would be limited.52