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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fourth:Violation of NEPA, Failure to Prepare Adequate EnvironmentalDocumentation for IR-178 ActivitiesPlaintiffs argue that Defendants’ current and ongoing operations within IR-178 are notsupported by the requisite environmental documentation necessary under NEPA. Plaintiffsallege that Defendants’ IR-178 documentation is outdated, does not reflect current conditions orimpacts, has not been supplemented as required by law, and otherwise does not comply withNEPA requirements.Fifth:Violation of NEPA, Failure to Adequately Respond to Public CommentsPlaintiffs complain that Defendants did not adequately or meaningfully respond tonumerous public comments received by Defendants and that Defendants failed to identify andincorporate opposing views into the decisionmaking process.Sixth:Violation of NEPA, Inadequate Discussion of Mitigation MeasuresIn violation of NEPA’s “reasonably complete” standard, Plaintiffs contend thatDefendants have failed to adequately address mitigation measures with respect to airspace andaircraft operations, land management and land use, wildlife, and cultural and recreationalresources.Seventh:Violation of NEPA, Failure to Adequately Consider Cumulative ImpactsPlaintiffs complain that Defendants did not consider all cumulative impacts potentiallyresulting from the effects of the RBTI when added to other past, present, and reasonablyforeseeable actions affecting Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants have failed toidentify or to adequately discuss the impact of past activities in the region so that the aggregatecumulative effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions may be identified.8
Eighth:Violation of NEPA, Improper Scope of Environmental DocumentPlaintiffs complain that Defendants did not adequately analyze the environmental effectsof the entire scope of the RBTI in the region, including the recent expansion of the GermanLuftwaffe operations out of Holloman Air Force Base vis-à-vis the proposed modification andexpansion of the RBTI. Rather, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants prepared a separateenvironmental assessment (“EA”) and a separate environmental impact statement (“EIS”) foreach project but failed to consider interrelated, connected, cumulative, or similar actions withinthe region in a single comprehensive NEPA document.Ninth:Violation of NEPA, Failure to Consider Reasonable Range of AlternativesPlaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives,including (1) basing U.S. and/or foreign military aircraft at training locations other than Dyessand Barksdale AFBs; (2) utilizing alternative methods for meeting Defendants’ training needs; or(3) utilizing off-shore training routes in the Gulf of Mexico.Tenth:Violation of NEPA and the Noise Control Act (“NCA”), Failure toAddress and Implement NCA PoliciesPlaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to adequately address the noise impacts ofthe proposed action in the affected areas, to discuss or address conflicts with federal, state, andlocal noise requirements, or to adequately mitigate the noise impacts of the proposed RBTI bylimiting, reducing, or modifying the RBTI. 22 In Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs purport to stipulate to dismissal ofPlaintiffs’ Tenth Claim for Relief. However, arguments urged by Plaintiffs infra appear inconsistent withsuch a stipulation.9
Page 3 and 4: Dale and Susan Toone; Tim and Rexan
Page 5: would cause a potential disturbance
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 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
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?