Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Mitigation Discussion in Final EIS

Text: Petitioners also attack the discussion of mitigation measures in the final EIS and those adopted by the Air Force in its ROD.47 First, petitioners argue that the final EIS does not adequately discuss measures to mitigate potential adverse effects on underlying livestock operations. Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, however, the final EIS does recognize that overflights may injure livestock and provides mitigation in the form of a claims process for ranchers whose livestock suffer injury. In light of the Air Force’s non-arbitrary 46 See 40 C.F.R. § 1503.1(b) (“An agency may request comments on a final environmental impact statement before the decision is finally made. In any case other agencies or persons may make comments before the final decision”). The public can access the final EIS under the Freedom of Information Act. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The agency may not issue its decision until thirty days after publication of notice of the final EIS in the Federal Register. 40 C.F.R. §1506.10(b)(2). Thus, the public can obtain and comment on the final EIS during that period. 47 CEQ regulations require a discussion of possible mitigation measures in an EIS. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h). 22 conclusion that adverse effects on livestock were unlikely, we find the Air Force’s limited discussion of measures to mitigate those effects reasonable.48 Petitioners also argue that reducing the annual number of sorties from the proposed 2,600 to 1,560 and utilizing existing military airspace to the maximum extent possible in creating Lancer MOA did not provide any mitigation because the RBTI would still impose more overflights on certain areas than they had experienced before implementation of the RBTI. This argument is premised on a misunderstanding of the term “mitigation.” The CEQ regulations define “mitigation” as “[a]voiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action” or “[m]inimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.”49 By reducing the number of sorties proposed for Alternative B by over 1,000 and avoiding creation of new airspace, the Air Force limited the magnitude of the RBTI. Thus, petitioners’ argument that these measures did not truly “mitigate” is without merit, and the EIS is not invalid for failure to adequately address mitigation measures. 48 See Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 377 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“NEPA does not require federal agencies to examine every possible environmental consequence. Detailed analysis is required only where impacts are likely.”) 49 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20. 23