Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Effects on Civil and Commercial Aviation

Text: Petitioners’ final challenge to the EIS’s analysis of environmental effects concerns potential conflicts between training flights in IR-178 and Lancer MOA and civil and commercial aviation in western Texas. Petitioners contend that the Air Force’s conclusion in the EIS that the RBTI would have little effect on airspace management is contradicted by an FAA study in the administrative record. In addition, petitioners claim that the Air Force violated its own regulations by failing to adequately address mitigation measures proposed by the FAA study in the EIS. The Air Force argues that effects on aviation are “aeronautical” rather than “environmental,” and thus do not require discussion in an EIS. Counsel for the Air Force acknowledged in oral argument, however, the difficulty involved in 34 See Westphal, 230 F.3d at 174-75 (stating that “the conclusions upon which an [EIS] is based must be supported by evidence in the administrative record.”) 35 40 C.F.R. § 1506.3(a); Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, question 30, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (Mar. 23, 1981). 18 drawing a bright line between effects that are purely “aeronautical” and those that are “environmental.” Because “‘[e]nvironment’ means something more than rocks, trees, and streams, or the amount of air pollution [- i]t encompasses all the factors that affect the quality of life,”36 we are reluctant to draw such a line. Civil and commercial aviation are part of the modern human environment broadly defined, and because the RBTI would impact aviation, NEPA required the Air Force to address that impact in the EIS.37 “It is a familiar rule of administrative law that an agency must abide by its own regulations.”38 The Air Force regulations implementing NEPA provide that an EIS must include “responses to comments on the Draft EIS by modifying the text and referring in the appendix to where the comment is addressed or providing a written explanation in the comments section, or both.”39 In the present case the Air Force responded to the FAA solely by modifying the text. It did not refer in the appendix to where the FAA’s comments were addressed or provide any written explanation, neglecting much of its responsibilities under the 36 Jones v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 390 F. Supp. 579, 591 (E.D. La. 1974). 37 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(i). 38 Fort Stewart Sch. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641, 654 (1990). 39 32 C.F.R. § 989.19(d). 19 regulation. We therefore conclude that this portion of the EIS is also inadequate.