Opinion ID: 65019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The FWS Decision Making Process

Text: Finally, the City and TWDB also argue that the decision making process FWS engaged in was a sham. Appellants point to several flaws: FWS's choice of a 20-year project horizon for analysis of impacts, its failure to coordinate with local and state planning agencies in violation of CEQ regulations, and its failure to publish a final EA. The record reveals that FWS engaged in an extensive process of public education and public comment and even worked with officials from the City and TWDB to identify an alternative site that would allow the refuge and the reservoir to coexist. Emails between various FWS officials reveal nothing more than an appropriate advocacy for a favored agency alternative. In arguing that FWS was required to publish a final EA, Appellants cite only to non-binding internal policy memos and not to any binding regulation or statute. Appellants' assertion that FWS abused its discretion by failing to coordinate with the local, regional, and state water planning process falls short, since neither NEPA nor any of the other statutes the City or TWDB cite require an agency to insinuate itself into state planning processes in the manner suggested. Finally, Appellants fail to show that FWS's 20-year planning horizon was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. As the district court noted, FWS must set some kind of time frame for its evaluations; it cannot have an interminable planning period. City of Dallas, Tex. v. Hall, 2008 WL 2622809, at  n. 10 (N.D.Tex. June 30, 2008).