You are on page 1of 29

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 29

1

ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

2

P.O. Box 41835
Tucson, Arizona 85719
(520)529-1798

3
4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Joy E. Herr-Cardillo (009718)
jherrcardillo@aclpi.org
Timothy M. Hogan (004567)
thogan@aclpi.org

8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
11

RITA B. ORNELAS, GARY HUNTER, and
ANITA SCALES,
No.

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.

COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE AIR FORCE, ROY ALAN C.
AGUSTIN, in his official capacity as
Brigadier General, USAF, and Director of
Installations & Mission Support

17

(DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, the Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest, for their Complaint against defendants allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION

21
22
23
24

1.

Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of the

National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (“NEPA”).
2.

On May 14, 2015, the United States Department of the Air Force (“USAF”)

25

approved an update and implementation of the Total Force Training Mission for Visiting

26

Units (Operation Snowbird Multi-Service, Foreign Military Sales)(“TFT”) at Davis-Monthan

-1-

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 29

1

Air Force Base (“DMAFB”) located in Tucson, Arizona. The approved action will increase

2

the annual number of sorties1 flown by visiting units at DMAFB to 2,326.

3

3.

In evaluating the TFT, the USAF failed to comply with numerous requirements

4

of the NEPA and failed to adequately evaluate the environmental impact of the approved

5

action. As set forth below, USAF action in this case was arbitrary, capricious, and not in

6

accordance with applicable law.

7

4.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief that recognizes that the

8

environmental assessment prepared by the USAF is inadequate and requires the USAF to

9

conduct a legally-compliant NEPA analysis including an Environmental Impact Statement as

10

required by law.

11

5.

12

Should Plaintiffs prevail, they will seek an award of costs and attorneys’ fees

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13
14

6.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

15

(Federal Question), 1346 (United States as defendant), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (judicial

16

review provisions of the APA), and is authorized to provide the relief sought under 28

17

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

18

7.

Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because this is a civil

19

action in which officers or employees of the United States or any agency thereof are acting in

20

their official capacity, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

21

occurred in this judicial district, and the Plaintiffs all reside in this district.

22

8.

An actual, justiciable controversy exists now between the parties within the

23

meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2201 and Plaintiffs are entitled to relief sought herein to redress the

24

harm Plaintiffs would otherwise suffer.

25
26

1
A sortie consists of a single aircraft conducting flight operations from initial takeoff to final landing, which
represents two airfield operations (one takeoff and one landing).

-2-

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 29 1 9. The injuries suffered by Ms. Ornelas lives in close proximity to the DMAFB in the Julia Keen neighborhood.S. Ornelas is a former member of Tucson Forward and current member of 19 Americans for Livable Communities and helped draft the written comments submitted by 20 those organizations during the public comment periods for the “Draft Environmental 21 Assessment for the Proposed Update and Implementation of the National Guard Bureau 22 Training Plan 60-1 in Support of Operation Snowbird Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Plaintiff Rita B. §702. which 10 she purchased in 1987.” 26 (“Revised Draft EA”). Ms. PARTIES 7 8 9 12. is in the flight pattern of the TFT operations (within the 70-74 dB 11 zone) and aircraft taking off and landing at the DMAFB fly directly over her house. 23 Arizona” (“Draft EA”) and “Draft Environmental Assessment for the Update and 24 Implementation of the Total Force Training Mission for Visiting Units (Operation Snowbird. As a 12 result. The federal government has waived sovereign immunity in this action pursuant 6 to 5 U. she is directly and negatively impacted by the approved action to increase the number 13 of sorties flown by visiting units. Ms. Ornelas include economic 14 injuries due to the negative impact that the increased flight traffic has on the value of her 15 home. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Ornelas also submitted individual written comments under her -3- .C. 4 10. 25 Multi-Service. Arizona. Arizona. Ms. 18 13. Ornelas’s home. Ms. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Ornelas is a resident of Tucson. as well as physical and emotional injuries that she has suffered and will continue to 16 suffer as a result of being subjected to an increased number of sorties by aircraft that are also 17 increasingly loud. and Foreign Military Sales) Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. 5 11. The USAF does not 2 provide an administrative appeal process for decisions documented in a Finding of No 3 Significant Impact (“FONSI”).

which he and his wife purchased in 1997. Hunter 14 participated as representative of the Blenman-Elm Neighborhood Association. Plaintiff Gary Hunter is a resident of Tucson. As a result. is in the flight 23 pattern of the TFT operations and aircraft taking off and landing at the DMAFB fly directly 24 over her house. He drafted the written comments submitted by the Blenman-Elm 17 Neighborhood Association and helped draft the written comments submitted by Tucson 18 Forward and by Americans for Livable Communities during the comment periods for the 19 Draft EA and Revised Draft EA. Ms. As a result. Plaintiff Anita Scales is a resident of Tucson. Ms. Arizona and lives in the 22 Broadmoor neighborhood. he is directly and negatively impacted by the approved 8 action to increase the number of sorties flown by visiting units. she is directly and negatively impacted by the approved action 25 to increase the number of sorties flown by visiting units. He also submitted individual written comments under his 20 own name during the comment periods for the Draft EA and Revised Draft EA. and emotional and 11 physical injuries that the increasing noise has on his quality of life. and is a current member of Americans for 16 Livable Communities. Scales 26 include economic injuries due to the negative impact that the increased flight traffic with its -4- . 4 14. Scales’ home. is in the 6 flight pattern of TFT operations and aircraft taking off and landing at the DMAFB fly 7 directly over his house. 12 15. Hunter participated in the Military Community Compatibility Committee 13 in 2005 – 2006. 9 Hunter include economic injuries due to the negative impact that the increased flight traffic 10 with its resulting noise and safety concerns has on the value of his home. 21 16. Mr. Arizona and lives in the 5 Blenman-Elm neighborhood. The injuries suffered by Mr. which she purchased in 2000. He 15 participated in organizing Tucson Forward. His home. Mr. The injuries suffered by Ms.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 29 1 own name during the public comment period for the Draft EA. Ornelas was the 2 Representative of the Julia Keen Neighborhood Association on the Military Community 3 Relations Committee (“MCRC”) from 2009 to January 2016. From the inception of the MCRC in 2006 until 2015.

S. § 4342. Headquarters ACC. Defendant USAF is the federal agency that.C. and emotional and physical 2 injuries that the increasing noise has on her quality of life. Ms. Agustin is named in his official capacity as Brigadier 10 General and the Director of Installations and Mission Support. 22 22. §§ 1500 et seq. through Air Combat Command (“ACC”) manages DMAFB. 7 8 9 18. 17 21.R.S. 24 40 C. It oversees and authorizes training by visiting units at the base. General Agustin is responsible for the FONSI and approval 13 of the proposed action at issue in this case. Joint 11 Base Langley-Eustis. Congress enacted NEPA in 1969. 42 U. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 – 19 as if fully set forth herein. 3 17.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 29 1 resulting noise and safety concerns has on the value of her home. Ms. Scales is a member of both Tucson Forward and Americans for Livable 4 Communities and helped draft the written comments submitted by those organizations during 5 the public comment periods for the original Draft EA and the Revised Draft EA. The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgated uniform 23 regulations to implement NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies.F.C. Virginia. 19. directing all federal agencies to assess the 18 environmental impacts of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the 19 environment. 42 U. Defendant Roy Alan C. 21 and (2) to insure that the public has sufficient information to challenge the agency’s action. § 4332(2)(C). 14 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK 15 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 16 20. NEPA’s disclosure goals are two-fold: (1) to insure 20 that the agency has carefully and fully contemplated the environmental effects of its action. Scales 6 is also an alternate member of the MCRC. representing Tucson Forward on that Committee. 25 26 -5- . He is responsible for ensuring that DMAFB supports 12 operational and training needs.

S. Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result “from the 21 incremental impact of the action when added to other past. § 1508. whether direct. An agency must evaluate potential adverse economic effects that are interrelated 12 with natural or physical environmental effects. 25 26 -6- .14. and reasonably 22 foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 23 undertakes such other actions. 4 24. 10 economic.25.8.R.14. or cumulative. at §§ 1508.18.7.” 40 C. Effects that must be considered include ecological.” Id. Indirect effects “are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 16 removed in distance.C. 7 8 9 25. at § 1508. aesthetic.F. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed environmental statement 2 before undertaking any “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 3 environment. Id. cultural. historic. Id. at § 1508. 20 29. population density or growth rate.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 29 1 23. and related effects on air and water and other natural 19 systems. 11 1508. 13 14 15 27. at § 1508. indirect. but are still reasonably foreseeable. The “human environment” includes “the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. Direct effects are effects “which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.” Id. at § 1508.” Id. 28.8(b).” 42 U. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 24 collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. present. and health effects. including ecosystems. social.” Id. Indirect effects may include 17 growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced change in the pattern of land 18 use. “Major federal actions” subject to NEPA include “new and continuing 5 activities” with “effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal 6 control and responsibility. 26. at § 1508.8(a). § 4332(2)(C).

the 943rd Rescue Group. Judicial review of federal agency action is governed by the Administrative 10 Procedure Act (“APA”). There are daily flight operations by aircraft units based at DMAFB.S. 24 35.4(e). or otherwise not in accordance with the law" or “without observance of 13 procedure required by law. Under the APA. part of ACC. it must issue a “finding of no significant impact” (“FONSI”). 14 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 15 33. DMAFB is bounded by residential areas to its north. or conclusions found to be "arbitrary. DMAFB occupies 10. (D).F. 5 U. 6 which briefly presents the reasons why the proposed agency action will not have a significant 7 impact on the human environment.9(a). thereby requiring the 3 preparation of an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). The 355 FW’s combat mission is providing A- 21 10 Thunderbolt II close air support and OA-10 forward air controllers to ground forces 22 worldwide. the 563rd Rescue Group. 1508. § 1501. which 25 includes the 355th FW. an agency determines that an EIS is not required under 5 applicable CEQ regulations.S. or about sixteen and a 17 half square miles of land. courts “shall hold unlawful 11 and set aside” agency action. 40 C.1508. and 18 east. Arizona approximately five miles south- 16 southeast of Tucson’s downtown. 1 An agency may prepare an environmental assessment (“EA”) to determine 2 whether a proposed action will significantly affect the environment. Customs and Border Protection and the Aerospace and Maintenance -7- .633 acres. See §§ 1501. Air Force A-10.4(a). 31. 19 34. U. The host unit headquartered at DMAFB is the 355th Fighter Wing (“355 FW”) 20 assigned to Twelfth Air Force. the 55th Electronic 26 Combat Group. § 706(2)(A). 4 If.S.S.” 5 U. DMAFB is located in Tucson. west.13.R. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 8 9 32. findings. and 12 abuse of discretion. 23 OA-10 and EC-130 pilots and crews. The 355 FW provides initial and recurrent training to all U. pursuant to the EA. § 551 et seq.C. capricious.C.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 29 30.

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 8 of 29 1 and Regeneration Group.000 flight operations per 2 year. Depending on the direction of departing and arriving air traffic.000 foot 8 overruns at each end. forward air control. 17 40. by substituting two A-10 units for A-7 units. ANG 16 F-16s also fly in and out of DMAFB. Flights departing on Runway 30 or landing on Runway 12 fly over the residential neighborhoods to the northwest of DMAFB. which reduced the number of OSB aircraft at DMAFB by 30 25 percent. 10 11 12 38.000 to 80. The runway at DMAFB is 13. Operation Snowbird (“OSB”) was started in 1972 and was initially designed 18 and implemented to allow ANG units from bases located in northern states to train in optimal 19 weather conditions during the winter months. Routine ANG activities are conducted by the 162nd FW out of 15 the TIA. it reduced the number of 26 participating A-7 units from five to three. A portion of the OSB was 24 relocated to other bases. A fatal crash of an A-7 near the University of Arizona campus in 1978 23 prompted the USAF and ANG to reevaluate the OSB program. Some of these activities require pilots to perform “touch and 5 go’s” and other pattern flying operations (including a racetrack pattern) at and within the 6 airspace surrounding DMAFB. 3 36. with 1. 7 37. the USAF and ANG completed an EA and a FONSI was issued to address the activities occurring under OSB at DMAFB. The 162nd Fighter Wing (“162nd FW”) is a unit of the Arizona Air National 13 Guard (“ANG”). 200 feet wide. A-10 pilots are trained in providing close air support. In 1978. it is 9 referred to as either Runway 12 or Runway 30. 20 21 22 41. In addition.75 miles southwest of DMAFB. located next to the Tucson 14 International Airport (“TIA”). These units plan for up to 75. which is located approximately 3. 42. 645 feet long. 39. stationed at Tucson Air National Guard Base. and 4 combat search and rescue. At times. -8- .

14 Department of Defense. the only 16 neighborhood represented on the Policy Advisory Committee was the Rita Ranch 17 neighborhood which is to the southeast of the base. In 2001. however.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 9 of 29 1 2 3 4 5 43. As a result of this legislation. The expanded noise contours that formed the basis for the zoning overlays signaled 24 the potential for increased noise over long-established Midtown and University of Arizona 25 area neighborhoods and throughout the DMAFB environs. zoning overlays 22 were enacted to restrict land uses on properties that were located within the DMAFB flight 23 pattern. OSB had transitioned to a year round training program. no NEPA analysis was prepared to evaluate these changes in the program. the type of aircraft flying in OSB converted from F- 100 and A-7 to F-16. 26 -9- . 2004 the City of Tucson’s Mayor and Council voted to amend 20 the current Airport Environs Zone (“AEZ”) by incorporating the recommendations of the 21 JLUS into the appropriate sections of the City’s Land Use Code. and was intended to address land use compatibility issues. The JLUS was prepared under contract with the Arizona 13 Department of Commerce with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment. 44. the Arizona Military Regional 8 Compatibility Project was created to encourage stakeholders and jurisdictions around each 9 Arizona military base to address land use compatibility issues. but again. As a result. no NEPA analysis was prepared to evaluate these changes. which are located north of the base. as part of the Arizona Military Regional Compatibility 11 Project. On October 25. in the JLUS process. 19 47. 45. the Arizona Department of Commerce published a “Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 12 Joint Land Use Study” (“JLUS”). By 1995. There was no formal representation from 18 Tucson’s midtown neighborhoods. the Arizona Legislature passed legislation that appropriated funds to 6 develop comprehensive land use plans in the noise and accident potential zones surrounding 7 active military airports. Although 15 the study purported to seek input from property owners near DMAFB. 10 46. Between 1988 and 1992. In February 2004.

Midtown neighbors. One of the recommendations from the MC3 was to create an ongoing Military Community Relations Committee (“MCRC”). also perceived that noise and safety issues related to DMAFB 7 operations were not adequately addressed by the JLUS. 8 9 49. The MC3 was an advisory committee only and 15 had no power to adopt or implement any of its recommendations. through a series 18 of presentations highlighting the perspectives of: DMAFB. the U.S.” 53. Midtown residents were concerned about the potential 3 loss of residential property value due to new residential uses being restricted in the AEZ (the 4 stigma of “incompatible residential land use”) and to quality of life impacts due to the 5 expansion of the high noise contours. the 19 University of Arizona Science and Tech Park. gather information 14 and generate consensus recommendations. Udall 10 Foundation was enlisted by affected community members to assess the potential for a 11 community dialogue on these concerns. 17 The process began with education and information-sharing among members. The Military Community Compatibility Committee (“MC3”) that resulted 13 brought together representatives from diverse interests to discuss issues. The JLUS and the resulting zoning overlays were very controversial with 2 property owners affected by them. and non-residential 20 landowners. In August 2006 the MC3 issued its “Final Report: Consensus Recommendations. especially those to the 6 northwest of the runway. Udall and Stewart L. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K. 25 26 . outdoor-based businesses. 16 51. 12 50. 21 22 23 24 52. Shortly after the Mayor and Council’s October 2004 decision.10 - .Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 10 of 29 1 48. The 28-member MC3 met monthly between September 2005 and August 2006. Concerned stakeholders.

While the Wyle Draft Report was undergoing review. Air Force prepare a written environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not Operation Snowbird significantly impacts the Tucson environment. . In August 2009. On April 15. The purpose of the study was to mitigate on-going public concern over OSB 6 operations. Air Force contract for a new [Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (“AICUZ”)]. 60. . but not limited to.11 - . its flawed noise analysis. .Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 11 of 29 1 54. Wyle Laboratories released its Draft Preliminary Study 8 Report. Plaintiffs submitted written comments regarding the Draft EA both 23 24 individually and through the organization Tucson Forward. 4 55. The Wyle Draft Report concluded with two recommendations: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1. In July 2012. 55. Wyle Draft Report at p. The prevailing EA. A new EA would re-establish the baseline of activities and provide a more realistic view of impacts associated with Operation Snowbird operations. its inadequate . the USAF hired Wyle Laboratories to conduct a study of the 5 OSB program. 57. does not reflect the current level of operations. The failure of OSB to comply with NEPA came to the public’s attention—and 2 the attention of the USAF—with the circulation of a letter addressed to Defense Secretary 3 Robert Gates in November of 2008. More than 800 Tucsonans signed the letter. dated 1978. 21 58. 22 59. 7 56. Air Force flying operations at Davis Monthan AFB. its failure to include an impact analysis on children. the USAF released a Draft EA and FONSI for OSB. 2. The prevailing AICUZ. 2010. dated 1992. “Operation Snowbird Safety Procedures and Operational Study Services” (“Wyle 9 Draft Report”). the contract for the study was terminated and a decision was made to prepare an EA. its failure 26 to include an analysis of health impacts generally. A new AICUZ would re-evaluate aircraft noise and accident potential related to U. Those written comments identified numerous inadequacies in the Draft EA. does not reflect the current level of operations nor type of aircraft flown in Operation Snowbird. 25 including.S.

5 61. submitted written comments on the Revised Draft EA. “NGB/ANG is responsible only for those units/aircraft that are 15 planned specifically for OSB/Det. an Arizona . the USAF released for public comment the Revised The Revised Draft EA expanded the focus of the EA from just the OSB 12 program. units other than those based at DMAFB) flight operations that 19 occur at DMAFB and assess their potential impacts. purportedly to respond to the concerns expressed during the public 8 comment period. The public comment period for the Draft EA closed in October 2012.” Revised Draft EA at ES-1 through 2. its failure to consider a 2 reasonable range of alternatives. and to include all training missions by visiting units at DMAFB. property values. 10 Draft EA. and economic viability of their communities. 20 21 22 65.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 12 of 29 1 safety analysis. 24 The communities represented include homeowners who live and work in the flight pattern 25 from DMAFB and will be affected in a number of ways if the TFT program is expanded.” As the 14 Revised Draft EA explained. its inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts. To reflect that 13 change. Other DoD and FMS units 16 that train at DMAFB do so under the authority/approval of 355 FW/CC or ACC 17 Headquarters. 9 63. 26 Several of the current members of ALC were also active in Tucson Forward. After the close of the comment period. The comment letter also urged the USAF to 4 prepare an EIS. the name of the document changed to refer to “Total Force Training. 11 64.12 - . 66. the USAF announced that it was 7 revising the Draft EA. safety.e. The Plaintiffs individually and through Americans for Livable Communities (“ALC”). ALC is an alliance of concerned citizens whose mission is to protect and 23 enhance the livability. Thus.. 2014. continued training missions. ACC has decided to revise the 2012 Draft EA to more accurately 18 describe the visiting unit (i. 6 62. its failure to use 1978 as its “no action” alternative and its 3 inadequate environmental justice analysis. On September 22.

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 13 of 29 1 non-profit that was formed several years ago to protect Tucson and its neighborhoods from 2 health damaging noise and safety concerns related to overflights from Davis-Monthan. and reasonably foreseeable 21 future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. 15 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 16 FAILURE TO EVALUATE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 17 18 19 69. Multi-Service. its inadequate analysis of the impact on 7 children. 70.R. . its inappropriate reliance upon 2009 as the “no 8 action” alternative and its inadequate environmental justice analysis.” (“Final EA”) and 14 FONSI were released by ACC on May 15. 22 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 23 taking place over a period of time. 13 And Foreign Military Sales) Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. including. CEQ regulations require the USAF to conduct an analysis of the incremental 20 impact of the proposed action when added to other past. Arizona. its flawed and 5 incomplete noise analysis. The “Final Environmental Assessment for the Update and Implementation of 12 the Total Force Training Mission for Visiting Units (Operation Snowbird.7. its inadequate/missing analysis of cumulative impacts. Although the Final EA contains a chapter entitled “Cumulative Impacts and 25 Other Environmental Considerations.” the USAF failed to actually analyze cumulative 26 effects. 24 71. its failure 6 to include an analysis of health impacts generally.13 - . present. its inadequate safety analysis. 68.F. Plaintiffs and ALC once again identified numerous 4 inadequacies in the Revised Draft EA. especially related to noise. but not limited to. 2015. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. The comment letter 9 also objected to the inadequate process for public involvement in the Revised Draft EA and 10 11 urged the USAF to prepare an EIS. 3 67. 40 C. In their comment letter. § 1508.

without any supporting analysis or explanation. 6 73. and daily flight 17 operations by the various groups stationed at DM all year around which undertake “75.000 flight operations per year. 25 but will likely require more coordination between Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control 26 Center. training by the Royal 14 Netherlands Air Force in F-16s. and military airspace managers. police. Further.” Final EA. The analysis of cumulative impacts of TFT’s flights over Tucson’s residential 7 neighborhoods also fails to take into account commercial and general aviation aircraft. noise. including operations/flights of the 563rd Rescue Group. 12 74. which 8 fly in and out of TIA and pass over midtown. The 24 cumulative impacts identified for airspace. “[m]ost other actions at or 21 surrounding DMAFB may produce localized noise increases.7 miles southwest of DMAFB (Figure 1-2) are completely separate from 4 the actions described herein and. the FAA Central Service Region. are not discussed in this EA. thus. field training exercises. so 23 cumulative noise impacts would be localized and primarily on Federally owned land. primarily from ground 22 activities (such as weapons firing ranges. both 16 military and civilian (which includes F 35s from Luke Air Force Base). sometimes at 11 very low elevation. The Final EA states “[i]t should also be noted that other routine ANG activities 2 conducted by the 162 WG out of Tucson International Airport (TIA). or safety would not be significant.” a joint services exercise that occurs every 15 18 months and focuses on rescue missions. The Final EA identifies numerous actions that take place on or in association 13 with DMAFB. Instead. .” Final EA at 5-5. occasional overflights from other planes. or MILCON projects). and other civilian helicopters that fly over 10 midtown neighborhoods. 1-3 5 (emphasis added).14 - . which is located 3 approximately 4.” However. it simply 20 concludes. DMAFB and TFT helicopters also fly over midtown. the Final EA fails to actually analyze the 19 cumulative impacts of these activities on the human environment. the analysis of cumulative impacts 9 fails to consider the many medical. especially when practicing landings at Banner UMC and TMC. ranges.000 to 18 80. “Angel Thunder. p.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 14 of 29 1 72.

40 C. the USAF has fallen short of this requirement in several respects. 4 as it exists today. the Final EA dramatically understates the true impact 9 that the TFT activities have had and continue to have on the Tucson population living and 10 11 working in the DMAFB flight pattern. including scientific integrity. regardless of what time 6 frame is used for the no-action alternative.24. §1502. the Final EA appears to acknowledge that its 13 analysis does not comply with the NEPA requirement but states that “[t]he Air Force 14 believes the cumulative impact analysis is sufficient to comply with the spirit and intent of 15 CEQ regulations. In evaluating noise impacts on the community in the Final EA. 79.” Final EA p. By failing to do so. 76. of the discussions and analyses in their documentation.F. as well as present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. the Final EA fails to analyze the cumulative effects of the no-action 2 alternative. an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. That is not what the law requires.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 15 of 29 1 75. Because the USAF failed to fully evaluate the cumulative impacts of the 17 proposed action on the human environment. the USAF is obligated to fully evaluate the full range 7 of environmental impacts that have been foisted upon the affected community without any NEPA 8 analysis since 1978. Agencies are obligated under NEPA to insure the professional integrity. 19 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 20 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE NOISE IMPACTS 21 22 23 24 25 26 78. 3 rather than the program as it existed in 1978 (its last NEPA-compliant state) or alternatively. the Final EA and FONSI are arbitrary and 18 capricious. Because a cumulative impacts analysis must consider the impacts of past 5 actions.15 - . . 1-17 (emphasis added). In a response to a comment regarding the inadequate cumulative impacts 12 analysis set forth in the Revised Draft EA. 80. which the USAF has erroneously identified as TFT operations for the year 2009.R. Finally. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. 16 77.

“Improving Aviation Noise Planning. 11 For environments affected by short-duration. the Final EA relies only on DNL projections to evaluate noise impacts. This highly 7 technical 2007 Noise Study (adjusted) was difficult for the untrained public to understand. Analysis and Public Communication with Supplemental Metrics” (December. 5 82. or how these flights may interfere with activities. the Final EA refused to 13 consider supplemental metrics. The number and intensity of the individual noise events that make up DNL are critically important to public understanding of the effects of noise around airports. the Final EA relies upon assumptions underlying the day-night average 2 sound level (DNL) which have a very high likelihood of changing. . First. reducing the description of noise exposure to a single value of DNL may not help the public understand noise exposure. high sound exposure level events such as aircraft 12 noise. what time of day. what type of airplanes. and urging Military Services to supplement DNL with other 15 methodological approaches in evaluating noise impacts. an official update of the 1992 AICUZ Study is years overdue yet was still in draft 9 form when the Final EA was released. 8 Further. such as sleep and watching television. A major assumption was based upon a 2007 draft update (adjusted to 2009 6 levels) of the AICUZ Study for DMAFB that was last completed in 1992. What is needed is a better way to communicate noise exposure in terms that are more easily understood. 2009) at 2-1. despite recent guidance from the DOD recognizing the 14 limitations of DNL. As the DOD advises in its 2009 16 guidance: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 While the Federal agencies have accepted DNL as the best metric for land use compatibility guidelines.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 16 of 29 1 81. thus significantly 3 affecting the DNL projections and potentially changing the analysis which forms the basis of 4 the conclusions of the FONSI. 10 83.16 - . DNL analysis fails to describe the most serious impacts. Second. Simply looking at the location of their home on a DNL contour map does not answer the important questions: how many times airplanes fly over. Yet. Supplementing DNL with additional metrics will help the public better understand noise exposure. Department of Defense Noise Working Group.

The Final EA claims that 6 “models are routinely verified by the Air Force” (Final EA at 4-1). The impact of noise on the cognitive development of children has been recognized 24 in the scientific literature. identification and analysis 13 of such measures is part of the required analysis. 3 and offers no explanation as to why the USAF chose to ignore the DOD recommendation. Because the USAF failed to fully evaluate the noise impact of the proposed 15 action on the human environment. the 2 Final EA states only that additional metrics are recommended but not required by the DOD. However. the Aircraft Noise Analysis offered to support the Final EA uses two of 5 the three models from the NOISEMAP suite of noise models. The 70-74 11 dB zone is an area which particularly commands attention in terms of mitigation. 89. For example. the Final EA also fails to identify appropriate mitigation. 20 21 22 23 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. the Final EA and FONSI are arbitrary and capricious. While 12 adoption of mitigation measures is not a requirement of the law.” 90. this statement 7 is at odds with information received by plaintiff Gary Hunter from DMAFB’s Captain 8 Osborne and Civil Engineer Joe Doyle on the day of the deadline for submitting comments. a 2011 study by the World Health Organization (and 25 included in Plaintiffs’ comments) addressed at length the adverse impact that airport noise in 26 . 10 86. In refusing to consider supplemental metrics in its noise impacts analysis.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 17 of 29 1 84. Finally. 9 There is no evidence that NOISEMAP used in the Final EA has been verified. Third.17 - . Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children”) (“EO 13045”) requires an assessment of “health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. an 16 abuse of discretion and contrary to law. 14 87. 17 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE IMPACTS ON CHILDREN 19 88. 4 85.

The Final EA states that “[s]tudies show that noise can interfere with student learning show impacts [sic] when the outside noise levels are greater than 65 dBA. 93. EPA has advised in a 2012 memorandum regarding “Addressing Children’s Health 4 through Reviews Conducted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 5 of the Clean Air Act. 22 Table 4. 45-53 (“WHO Study”). "Burden of disease from environmental 2 noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe." pp. Impacts 20 to health are experienced at lower levels as well. schools. Children 16 living in those residences will be adversely impacted by the noise and the Air Force has an 17 obligation under NEPA and EO 13045 to undertake a meaningful evaluation of the nature 18 and extent of those impacts.” that NEPA documents. It also failed to 26 . including environmental assessments. The WHO study found that levels as low as 21 30 dBA could disturb sleep and result in documented health impacts. 8 9 10 11 92.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 18 of 29 1 particular has on the cognitive development of children. up to 128 single family 15 residences and 4 multifamily residences are within the 65dBA DNL contour alone.” Final EA at 4-23. The Final EA completely ignored the 2011 WHO Study and the EPA memorandum as well as other studies noted by various other commenters. Much of the noise contour identified in the Final EA 14 extends over residential neighborhoods. 58. should 6 consider the impact that noise can have on children’s health and learning. According to the Final EA. however. 24 25 95. and daycare centers. especially when it 7 occurs near homes. p.18 - . however. no schools are located within the 65 dBA. The noise impacts upon children. 3 91. are not limited to noise experienced 12 in the school or daycare setting. See WHO Study. The impact on children living within the flight patterns 13 must also be taken into account. Nor is the impact limited to children within the 65dBA DNL contour. 19 94.1 Ranges for the relationship between nocturnal noise exposure and health effects in 23 the population.

it fails to comply 5 with EO 13045 and NEPA.” The 22 study “found a statistically significant association between exposure to aircraft noise and risk of 23 hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases among older people living near airports. This relation 24 remained after controlling for individual data. Plaintiffs raised the issue of health impacts of the proposed action. Francesca. the heath impact of noise.. 7 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 8 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE HEALTH IMPACTS GENERALLY 97. zip code level socioeconomic status and 25 demographics. “Residential Exposure to Aircraft Noise and Hospital Admissions for 18 Cardiovascular Diseases: Multi-airport Retrospective Study”. Peters. and roadway proximity variables. air pollution. noise levels were estimated “at the centroid of 21 each census block surrounding each of the 89 airports out to a minimum of 45 dB .Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 19 of 29 1 address impacts on children living both within the 65dBA DNL contour. . and in particular. and children living 2 outside the contour but within the flight paths. Juenette L. 17 Dominici. 13 In their comments to the Revised Draft EA. 11 12 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained In their Comment Letter to the Revised Draft EA. as a result. 98. 347:f5561 (“2013 19 Harvard Noise Study”). 20 In the 2013 Harvard Noise Study. 3 Because the Final EA fails to even address the potential health impacts that the 4 proposed action would have on children living within the flight pattern. 100. Plaintiffs alerted the USAF to a 14 2013 study by the Harvard School of Public Health and Boston University School that analyzed 15 noise impacts from 89 airports in the United States and utilized data for approximately six million 16 study participants. Correia. 9 10 above as though fully set forth herein. . . Melly. 99.” 2013 Harvard Noise Study at p. Levy. Steven. 6 an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. BMJ 2013. Jonathan.. the Final EA and FONSI are arbitrary and capricious. 26 6.19 - . 96. . Andrew W.

” Final EA at 3-25 through 3-26. the USAF has an obligation under 25 NEPA to keep itself informed of the latest research results. Laszlo.F. “citing the sources. Sean.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 20 of 29 1 101. “[t]he impact of aircraft noise on physical and 8 mental health has been the subject of numerous studies. . Sarah. 1503. § 1502. including. Hansell. or reasons which support the 24 agency’s position. Fortunato. with some studies indicating that there is a 10 relationship between aircraft noise and aspects of physical and mental health. Elliott. Kees de Hoogh. 7 102. The Final EA concludes by stating that the TRB report “and others report that 17 further research is needed to establish definitive causal relationships. Floud. Linda. Pearson. 16 104. 5 John.22(a)). as 20 well as other studies cited by Plaintiffs in their comment letter. 12 103.” Final EA at 3-27. controlling for many of the factors earlier studies had identified. but others showing 11 contradictory or inconclusive results. Nicky. . In the Final EA. the Final EA totally ignores the 2013 Harvard Noise Study which provided a much 19 finer degree of analysis. authorities. Agencies are free to reject critical comments on their analysis so long as 22 credible opposing views are identified and an agency explains why comments do not warrant 23 further agency response. The Final EA goes on to very briefly discuss a 2008 update to a 1985 13 Transportation Research Board/National Academy report (“TRB report”) substantiating 14 contradictory studies and a 2000 Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise 15 (FICAN) report summarizing research on the effects of aircraft noise on classroom learning. Beevers.20 - . Richardson. .F. Sylvia. Anna. but not limited to the 26 recent reports identified in Plaintiffs’ comment letter. .R. Lea.” (40 C. Studies have examined impacts from 9 various sound levels and length of exposure. Marta. 21 105.” BMJU 2013: 347:f5432.4).R. Rebecca. (40 C. Helga. however. Best. Blangiardo. Frecht. 4 Daniela. “Aircraft noise and cardiovascular disease 6 near Heathrow airport in London: small area study. Paul. Plaintiffs also referenced a study of individuals living in the vicinity of Heathrow 2 Airport in London that had reached similar conclusions at about the same time as the American 3 study. the USAF states. Beale. Clare. 18 However. Gulliver. Ghosh.

4 Forest Service. The only NEPA-compliant OSB 20 program was the one that was in existence in 1978.R. 26 . the USAF continued to use 2009 as the No Action 24 Alternative.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 21 of 29 1 106. 23 112. In the Revised Draft EA. 689 F. 2012).” League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. 8 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 9 FAILURE TO USE AN APPROPRIATE “NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE 10 11 12 108. In the Draft EA.” an EA must evaluate alternative actions.F. the No 19 Action alternative in the Draft EA was improperly defined. Because the Final EA fails to fully and adequately address the health impacts 6 its proposed action has on the Tucson residents living within the TFT flight pattern. the Final 7 EA and FONSI are arbitrary and capricious. Consequently. Draft EA at 2-2 through 2-3.9(a)(1) & (b). 111. Plaintiffs pointed out that because there was 18 no current NEPA-compliant decision authorizing overflights by aircraft other than A-10s. they asserted that it. In their Comments on the Draft EA. In order to “provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether 13 to prepare an environmental impact statement.S. the USAF considered four alternatives including a “No Action Alternative” in its alternatives analysis.21 - . 109. It argued that 2009 was a better “no action” alternative because it is “similar to the 25 average number of annual sorties flown between 2002 and now. “[G]eneral statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a 2 hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be 3 provided. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. § 1508.” Revised Draft EA at 2-5. should be used as the No Action 22 Alternative. 40 14 C. not the 21 program as it existed—in violation of NEPA—in 2009. U.3d 1060 (9th Cir. an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. 15 16 17 110. 5 107.

the Air Force acknowledges. an abuse of 20 discretion and contrary to law. As Plaintiffs pointed out in their comments to the Revised Draft EA.” In fact. 1408. there is 2 nothing in applicable law or guidance regarding the “no action” alternative that suggests that an 3 agency can take average activity over a twelve year period and call that the “no action 4 alternative. Reg. as amended) See also Seattle 13 Audubon Society v. Using 2009 as a no- 7 action alternative deliberately understates the significance of the proposed increase. 21 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 22 PUBLIC NOTICE/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 23 24 25 26 117. 46 Fed. 888 in 2012. 871 F.deserves full analytical treatment.1978 or the present . The analysis of the “no action” alternative under either scenario . the Final EA and FONSI are arbitrary and capricious. Supp. according to the USAF.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 22 of 29 1 113. 129. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. the number of TFT sorties flown in 2009. W. 16 17 18 115. In the Final EA.D. In their comments to the Revised Draft EA. and 782 in 2011).22 - . 6 there were 519 TFT sorties in 2013. 18026 (March 23. which had been held invalid by a court). See Question 3. 8 114. is substantially greater than 5 the number of TFT sorties flown in more recent years (for example. Plaintiffs suggested that if the USAF 9 did not use 1978 as the no action alternative. 116. Forty Most 11 Asked Questions Concerning the Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental 12 Policy Act Regulations. Because the Final EA fails to fully and adequately address an appropriate “no 19 action” alternative. 1994 (affirmed that the current 14 management was the correct “no action” alternative even though it was different from the 15 alternative chosen in the existing management plan. Lyons. then the only acceptable alternative was to use the 10 current program as recommended by CEQ for ongoing programs. that a disproportionate number of minority and low-income populations are affected by noise as compared to other . 1981. Wash. as it must. 118.

notices 9 and hearings for limited English speaking populations and directs agencies to work to ensure 10 that public documents. 1997) provides more detailed guidance on integrating 14 environmental justice issues into the NEPA process on these points (CEQ Guidance. and the 6 accompanying President Memorandum. 3-22. as well as toward the general public. understandable and readily 11 accessible to the public. 16 121. 11- 15 13). In particular. notices and hearings are concise. 1998. Section 5-5 on “Public Participation and Access 8 to Information” encourages federal agencies to translate crucial public documents. states that. pp. all but one of the adversely 2 affected census tracts has been determined to be a geographic area that is disproportionately 3 populated by minority or low income residents. to .” August. 1994. using local translators where possible. “[p]ublic outreach and advertising of the process should be directed 26 specifically toward minority and low-income groups. 12 The CEQ’s “Environental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental 13 Policy Act” (December 10. In fact.23 - . EPA EJ Guidance. 41. USAF’s own “Guide for Environmental Justice Analysis with the 24 Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP). “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 5 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The EPA “Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in 17 EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses. Finally. November 25 1997. p. 23 122. Exhibit 4. including providing 20 simultaneous translation of discussion at meetings. 120. 119. p.” February 11.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 23 of 29 1 populations in Tucson (Final EA. 21 translation of key documents in their entirety. also addresses incorporating 18 environmental justice considerations into the NEPA process and provides even more detailed 19 recommendations on outreach to environmental justice communities. Table 3-11). establishing comment lines and many more 22 ideas. 4 Executive Order 12898. include specific direction on environmental justice 7 within the context of NEPA.” Department of the Air Force.

emphasis added. The Air Force guidance also states that: 10 All minority and low-income groups thus identified should be specifically notified of the availability of any information requesting input into the planning process and any subsequent environmental justice documents available for review. 20 125. 124. 6 123. and social agencies in the local community to identify target groups and 4 the channels (including non-English language where necessary) that would reach these 5 groups. In the Draft EA.” Air Force EJ EIAP Guidance. school or community center. no notices were received by residents of the Julia Keen neighborhood. p. public interest organizations and other such groups that 8 may be working directly with the affected communities and gives detailed guidance on doing 9 so.” (Draft EA p. Although the Final EA claims that the USAF reached out to the affected 18 communities. 4-15) 24 However. . . It may be advisable to schedule separate. This effort should include 2 coordination with federal. smaller scoping meetings at community locations where minority and lowincome populations would feel more comfortable participating. religious organizations. local groups. and tribal governments and agencies. the statement is made that.24 - . 6. 3 community leaders. The Air Force guidance goes on to discuss identifying various social service 7 agencies. This was 25 confirmed by residents of the area as well as by an Air Force representative who confirmed 26 . in an attempt to provide 23 meaningful involvement of the low-income and minority populations. 5. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Air Force EJ EIAP Guidance. such as a church. The public notification for the availability of and the comment period on the 21 Draft EA was seriously flawed. state. local. nontechnical language. “[s]imilar 22 notices were sent confirming the availability of the draft EA. Information should be presented in clear. p.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 24 of 29 1 encourage these groups to identify themselves and their concerns. this statement is false both with respect to the original Draft EA and with the 19 Revised Draft EA. .

No fliers or post cards advising of the release of the Revised EA were directed 9 to the Julia Keen neighborhood—the neighborhood most directly affected. even 11 though low income minority communities are less likely to have internet access. Executive Order 12898 also requires an analysis of “the environmental effects. 25 26 . Appendix E. p. despite the virtual quadrupling of the number of TFT flights on the impacted group of residents. 20 131. 129. The “Sample Environmental Justice Analysis” found in the Air Force 21 Guidance focuses on noise from both aircraft and surface traffic. These efforts were simply insufficient to allow for meaningful participation by 15 the residents that the USAF admits are disproportionately affected by the proposed action 16 and failed to comply with the federal requirements regarding environmental justice. economic and social effects of Federal actions” on the minority and 19 low income communities being affected by the proposed action. The Final EA has no such analysis of either aircraft or surface noise. In response the USAF translated the executive summary (5 6 pages of 144 pages) that it posted on the DMAFB website on the last day of the initial 7 comment period. 23 24 132. 18 including human health. E-3.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 25 of 29 1 to one of those residents that a mistake had been made in the text of the Draft EA that would 2 be “corrected” in the final EA. 8 127. 3 126. the 10 USAF relied almost exclusively on internet notifications and the DMAFB website. The only Spanish translation prepared in connection with the Revised EA was of the proposed FONSI. Rather. 17 130. A request was made to translate at least the executive summary of the Draft EA 4 into Spanish. Air Force EJ EIAP 22 Guidance. 12 13 14 128. given the high preponderance of Spanish-speaking residents in the most 5 directly affected neighborhoods.25 - .

but rather must show only 24 that there are substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect on the 25 environment. See 40 C. A party seeking to show that an agency should have prepared an EIS instead of 23 a FONSI need not demonstrate that significant effects will occur. whether or not the effects are highly controversial.26 - . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained above as though fully set forth herein. the agency must issue a FONSI accompanied by a convincing 14 statement of reasons to explain why a project's impacts are insignificant.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 26 of 29 1 133. If the EA 12 establishes that the agency's action may have a significant effect upon the environment. 18 136. Some of the factors considered in determining whether or not a project 19 “significantly” affects the human environment include the existence of impacts to public 20 health and safety.R. the Final EA and FONSI are arbitrary and 3 capricious. an abuse of discretion and contrary to law.F. The purpose of the NEPA analysis is to ensure that the agency has conducted an adequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. an 13 EIS must be prepared. the agency must demonstrate that it took a "hard 16 look" at the environmental consequences of the proposed action and that it considered all 17 foreseeable direct and indirect impacts. and whether the action 21 is related to other actions with cumulatively significant impacts. however. In certain 10 circumstances.27. 135. 4 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 FAILURE TO PREPARE AN EIS 6 7 8 9 134. agencies may first prepare an EA to make a preliminary determination 11 whether the proposed action will have a significant environmental effect. If not. 22 137. Regardless of 15 whether an EA or EIS is prepared. Because the USAF failed to fully evaluate the environmental justice impacts of 2 the proposed action on the human environment. 26 . § 1508.

an abuse of discretion. 23 24 25 26 . an abuse of discretion. 21 3. 14 1. The USAF’s FONSI was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against defendants as follows: A Declaratory Judgment finding that defendants’ actions were arbitrary. Here. The proposed action is controversial. 15 capricious.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 27 of 29 1 2 138. or otherwise not in accordance with law and that: 16 (a) USAF actions are in violation of NEPA. A Mandatory Injunction requiring the USAF to prepare an EIS that fully and 20 adequately evaluates all of the impacts of the proposed action. 5 b. 17 (b) The Revised EA was inadequate as a matter of law – it failed to take the 18 required “hard look” at the impacts of the proposed action. The proposed action’s effect on the human environment is highly uncertain. there are a number of factors that support a finding that the action is “significant” and requires an EIS: 3 a. RELIEF REQUESTED 11 12 13 WHEREFORE. 19 2. The USAF’s decision to ignore 6 supplemental metrics when evaluating noise impacts is contrary to recent guidance 7 from the DOD. The proposed action has the potential to have a significant effect on public 4 health and safety. 9 10 139. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. contrary to law and not supported by the record. 8 c. 22 4.27 - . Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

O. Box 41835 Tucson.Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 28 of 29 1 Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of January 2016 2 Arizona Center for Law In the Public Interest P. Herr-Cardillo Joy E. AZ 85717 3 4 5 s/Joy E. Herr-Cardillo Timothy M. Hogan 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .28 - .

Case 4:16-cv-00046-JR Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 29 of 29 .