Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CUMMINGS, District Judge. On this date the Court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 17, 2002, by Buster Welch, et al. (“Plaintiffs”). Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by the United States Air Force, et al. (“Defendants”) on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on December 18, 2002. The Brief by Amicus Curiae The State of Texas was filed on September 23, 2002. Defendants’ Response to State of Texas’ Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief in Support was filed on November 18, 2002. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On this date the Court concurrently considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Declarations and Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Declarations and Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants filed no reply. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Declarations and Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On this date the Court concurrently considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations was filed on January 15, 2003. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations was filed on January 30, 2003. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations. On this date the Court concurrently considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 15, 2003. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on January 30, 2003. Defendants filed no reply. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, this Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Strike Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. On this date the Court concurrently considered Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants filed no reply. After considering all the relevant arguments and evidence, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Parties The twenty-eight Plaintiffs in this case are landowners or business operators situated in Borden, Dawson, Dickens, Fisher, Garza, Glasscock, Howard, Kent, Loving, Lubbock, Martin, Mitchell, Nolan, Reeves, Scurry, and Stonewall Counties in west Texas. Plaintiffs collectively own or control approximately 530,000 acres of land which are used for, inter alia, cattle and horse ranching; farming; public and private hunting, fishing, camping, and other recreational activities; unscheduled aerial agricultural spraying and predator control; private aviation training; and a proposed residential development of 400-450 single-family homes. In addition, utilizing private takeoff and landing strips on their respective ranches, at least two of the Plaintiffs own multiple private small aircraft used to conduct unscheduled overflights of their ranches to check on livestock. The half-million-plus acres are described as “variable terrain with river valleys, peaks and flat country.” Defendants include the United States Air Force, the United States Department of Defense, the United States Secretary of the Department of Defense, and various individual United States military personnel sued in their official capacities. B. Final Environmental Impact Statement In January 2000 Defendants made public a Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) which had been prepared to assist Defendants in determining whether to implement the Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (“RBTI”). Of the four alternatives evaluated by the FEIS to fulfill the purpose of the RBTI, Defendants elected to implement Alternative B. The RBTI’s purpose is to establish a set of linked training assets (1) to permit aircrews from Barksdale Air Force Base (“AFB”) and Dyess AFB to train for various missions while maximizing combat training time; (2) to provide linkage of airspace and other assets that support realistic training of bomber aircrews; and (3) to ensure flexibility and variability in the training of support bomber combat missions. The four RBTI alternatives consisted of Alternative A No Action; Alternative B Instrument Route (“IR”)-178/Lancer Military Operations Area (“MOA”), 85 percent existing airspace; Alternative C IR-178/Texon MOA, 80 percent existing airspace; Alternative D IR-153/Mt. Dora MOA, 90 percent existing airspace. Under Alternative A, Defendants’ bombers would continue to use existing airspace and existing Electronic Scoring Sites (“ESS”) at current levels. Alternatives B, C, and D each involve (1) changes in the structure and use of the airspace, including some additional airspace and some eliminated airspace; (2) decommissioning the ESS at both Harrison, Arkansas, and La Junta, Colorado; and (3) construction of ten new electronic threat emitter sites and two ESS. Alternatives B and C lie almost wholly in western Texas, while Alternative D is located in northeastern New Mexico. Defendants admit that aircraft noise levels would increase 2-13 decibels (“dB”) in Alternatives B and C airspace and 1-18 dB in Alternative D airspace. The percentage of “highly annoyed” persons could rise under Alternative B, IR-178, by eight percent, and Defendants concede that increases in noise levels from RBTI aircraft could be perceived by some as affecting their quality of life. Defendants also acknowledge that Alternatives B and C would necessitate overflights of two special use land management areas (e.g., state parks, scenic rivers) but point out that Alternative D would necessitate overflights of thirteen such areas. Both Alternatives B and C would cause a potential disturbance of the aplomado [lead-colored] falcon historic range where eleven sightings of aplomado falcons have occurred since 1992, but Mexican spotted owls and bald eagles, both federally listed as threatened or endangered species, are found within Alternative D’s airspace. C. Record of Decision After considering the FEIS and the environmental consequences involved with each of the above alternatives, together with public comments and agency input, Defendants signed the Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the RBTI on March 24, 2000, and elected to implement Alternative B. Defendants assert that they selected Alternative B because the proposed RBTI operational and training assets located within approximately 600 nautical miles of Alternative B’s Barksdale and Dyess AFBs would include 1. A Military Training Route (“MTR”) that (a) offers variable terrain for use in terrain-following and terrain-avoidance training flights; (b) overlies lands capable of supporting electronic threat emitters and ESS that permit flights down to 200 feet above ground level (“AGL”); and (c) links to a MOA. 2. A MOA measuring at least 40x80 nautical miles with a floor of 3,000 feet AGL and extending to 18,000 feet above mean sea level (“MSL”) used for avoiding simulated threats and simulated attacks. 3. An Air Traffic Control Assigned Area (“ATCAA”) above the MOA at 18,000 to 40,000 feet MSL to be used for high-altitude training. 4. Availability of, through lease or purchase, a set of five locations (15 acres each) under or near the MTR corridor, and an additional five locations (15 acres each) under or near the MOA, for placing electronic threat emitters that would simulate the variety of realistic threats expected in combat. 5. Two ESS which would be co-located with operations and maintenance centers, one under or near the MTR corridor and the other en route from the AFBs to the MTR and MOA, each to be constructed on leased, purchased, or Air Force-owned property. Defendants’ ROD also confirmed the decommissioning of two existing ESS located in Harrison, Arkansas, and La Junta, Colorado. Defendants contend that these existing sites do not provide the required operational training assets outlined in 1-3 above. Defendants have also presented mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential for adverse effects to citizens and resources, including, but not limited to 1. reevaluating the potential impact of the aplomado falcon habitat; 2. considering construction alternatives in connection with roads, telephone lines, and power lines; 3. raising the AGL floor of several segments of IR-178 from the proposed 200 feet AGL to 300 feet AGL, and raising the floor of IR-178 reentry routes to 6,000 feet MSL; 4. relocating ESS and electronic threat emitter sites to avoid historical sites, homes, large structures, and obvious bodies of water; and 5. limiting the annual sortie operations to pre-RBTI levels of 1,560/year (about 6/day). D. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Relief First: Violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (“NEPA”), Failure to Adequately Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) Plaintiffs allege (1) that Defendants’ FEIS failed to take a “hard look” at the adverse consequences the RBTI would have on the quality of both human and wildlife environments and (2) that Defendants negligently or deliberately misrepresented, distorted, or undervalued comments, records, studies, and other documents used to formulate the FEIS. Second: Violation of NEPA, Failure to Adequately Consider Cumulative Impacts Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have failed to consider the “absolute quantitative adverse” consequences and cumulative environmental harm of the RBTI’s full range of airspace proposals. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have incorrectly treated all of the airspace modifications and expansions as discrete projects and programs subject to individual NEPA analysis. Plaintiffs insist that Defendants be required to prepare a “programmatic EIS.” Third: Violation of NEPA, Improper Scope of Environmental Document Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to adequately analyze the effects of the entire scope of the RBTI’s expansion of military training airspace and bombing range capability. Plaintiffs complain that, contrary to federal regulations which require federal agencies to assess in a single comprehensive NEPA document the effects of all stages of a project and all connected, cumulative, or similar actions, Defendants have improperly segmented interrelated and/or connected projects or cumulative or similar actions, thus rendering Defendants’ decisions arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with the law. Fourth: Violation of NEPA, Failure to Consider Reasonable Range of Alternatives Plaintiffs argue that Defendants considered only three alternatives in addition to the statutorily mandated No Action alternative. Plaintiffs complain that Defendants failed to consider whether offshore training routes would be feasible, whether airspace which already exists in South Dakota and Utah could continue to be utilized, whether the electronic threat emitters and ESS currently in place were adequate, or whether Kansas, Louisiana, or other mobile sites might be suitable. Fifth: Violation of NEPA, Failure to Adequately Consider Environmental Impacts Plaintiffs complain that Defendants failed to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of the RBTI on noise levels; human safety and health; medical evacuation flights; human and livestock annoyance; air quality; wildlife and birds; private property values; local customs and cultures of affected communities; ranching; commercial hunting and fishing operations; recreational activities; irreversible disturbances of productive grazing land by the electronic threat emitters; and the overall human environment and human condition, including the socioeconomic custom and cultural impacts of the RBTI on the residents of Lubbock, Texas. Sixth: Violation of the Noise Control Act (“NCA”) and NEPA, Failure to Address and Implement NCA Policies Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed to adequately evaluate the noise impacts of the RBTI under federal, state, and local noise requirements and have failed to propose adequate mitigation plans to reduce or eliminate the threat to the health and welfare of the human environment which would be caused by the increased noise levels of the RBTI. Plaintiffs further complain that Defendants failed to consider alternative single event noise metrics — as compared to day/night noise averaging in urban communities — to evaluate the impact of aircraft noise on rural residents. Seventh: Violation of NEPA, Inadequate Statement of Purpose and Need Plaintiffs complain that Defendants have failed to adequately describe, establish, or justify how the proposed RBTI fulfills the purpose and need of airtime saved, numbers of sorties reduced, and cost reductions realized when compared to current training routes. E. Plaintiffs ’ Prayers for Belief Plaintiffs seek judicial review of Defendants’ FEIS, ROD, and RBTI, and ask this Court to order Defendants to prepare a more comprehensive programmatic EIS. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to order in-junctive relief prohibiting the implementation of the expansion of military training activities and airspace approved by the RBTI and enjoining the expenditure of all federal funds mandated in connection therewith. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek issuance of Writs of Mandamus directing Defendants to comply with all common law and statutory obligations. Finally, Plaintiffs seek monetary, compensatory, and special damages, together with all costs of litigation. F. Defendants’ Affirmative Answers Defendants affirmatively answer that (1) all or part of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction over all or part of the subject matter of this action; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring all or part of this action; (4) Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust all administrative remedies; and (5) Plaintiffs’ issues are not yet ripe for consideration by this Court or any other. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pleadings Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on November 14, 2000; First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2001; and Second Amended Complaint on June 8, 2001. Defendants filed their respective Answers on December 21, 2000; March 28, 2001; and June 25, 2001. Motion to Dismiss . Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Part and Brief in Support Thereof on September 6, 2001. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Part was filed on October 2, 2001. Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Part was filed October 19, 2001. On December 19, 2001, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Part and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Claims for Relief, leaving undisturbed Plaintiffs’ First through Seventh Claims for Relief. Administrative Record On June 29, 2001, Defendants lodged with the Court eighteen (18) volumes, 12,-904 pages, comprising the final administrative record (“AR”). On November 16, 2001, this Court entered an Agreed Order Supplementing Administrative Record and Designating Joint Administrative Record. The Agreed Order ordered that the AR, which was filed in the instant cause of action on June 29, 2001, together with any supplementation thereto permitted by this Court, shall also serve as the AR in Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association v. United States Air Force, 249 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Tex.2003). The Agreed Order also allowed Defendants to supplement the AR with Exhibits A through Q. On November 21, 2001, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Reconsider Motion to Supplement the Record. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement was filed on December 14, 2001. This Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record was filed on April 1, 2002. Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials to Administrative Record and Brief in Support Thereof was filed on July 19, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unfile “Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials to Administrative Record and Brief in Support Thereof’ and to Require Filing of Declaration of Non-Existence of Responsive Documents was filed on August 13, 2002. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unfile “Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials to Administrative Record and Brief in Support Thereof’ and to Require Filing of Declaration of Non-Existence of Responsive Documents was filed on August 21, 2002; and Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unfile “Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials to Administrative Record and Brief in Support Thereof’ and to Require Filing of Declaration of Non-Existence of Responsive Documents was filed on September 5, 2002. This Court’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Unfile “Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials to Administrative Record and Brief in Support Thereof’ and to Require Filing of Declaration of Non-Existence of Responsive Documents was filed on September 11, 2002. Ultimately, the AR and supplements before this Court consisted of twenty-three (23) volumes, 15,950 pages. Summary Judgment On January 14, 2002, this Court entered an Agreed Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Agreed Motion to Enlarge Time to Submit Summary Judgment Briefs. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on September 17, 2002. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Declarations and Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Extra-Record Declarations and Materials Attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants filed no reply- Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations was filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations was filed on January 15, 2003. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Declarations was filed on January 30, 2003. The Brief of Amicus Curiae The State of Texas was filed on September 23, 2002. Defendants’ Response to State of Texas’ Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief in Support was filed on November 18, 2002. Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on November 15, 2002. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely filed on December 18, 2002. Defendants filed no reply. Oral Arguments This Court’s Order Setting Hearing to entertain oral arguments on January 29, 2003, specifically limited to (1) the appropriate baseline and (2) alternate basing was filed January 2, 2003. III. STANDARD Ordinarily, summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). However, when reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, “a motion for summary judgment ‘stands in a somewhat unusual light, in that the administrative record provides the complete factual predicate for the court’s review.’ ” Tex. Comm, on Natural Res. v. Van Winkle, 197 F.Supp.2d 586, 595 (N.D.Tex.2002) (quoting Piedmont Envtl. Council v. United States DOT, 159 F.Supp.2d 260, 268 (W.D.Va.2001), aff'd in relevant part by 58 Fed.Appx. 20 (4th Cir.2003) (per curiam)). “Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for resolving a challenge to a federal agency’s administrative decision when review is based upon the administrative record ..., even though the Court does not employ the standard of review set forth in Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.” Id. (quoting Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995)). In reviewing administrative agency decisions, the district court must determine whether, as a matter of law, evidence in the AR permitted the agency to make the decision it did, and “summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for deciding the legal question of whether an agency could reasonably have found the facts as it did.” Id. (quoting Sierra Club v. Dombeck, 161 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1064 (D.Ariz.2001)). “Judicial review has the function of determining whether the administrative action is consistent with the law — that and no more.” Girling Health Care, Inc. v. Shalala, 85 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). The standard for summary judgment on judicial review of agency decisions is not whether there is a genuine issue of material fact but “whether the agency action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or unsupported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole.” Envt. Now! v. Espy, 877 F.Supp. 1397, 1421 (E.D.Cal.1994) (citing Good Samaritan Hosp., Corvallis v. Mathews, 609 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir.1979)). Thus, the issue is not whether material facts are disputed but whether the agency properly dealt with the facts. Lodge Tower Condo. Ass’n v. Lodge Props., Inc., 880 F.Supp. 1370, 1376-77 (D.Colo.1995). The “court must find that the evidence before the agency provided a rational and ample basis for its decision.” Id. at 1377 (quoting Northwest Motorcycle Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir.1994)). The narrow scope of the court’s review is to determine whether the agency decision “was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment,” not to weigh the evidence pro and con. Delta Found., Inc. v. United States, 303 F.3d 551, 563 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)). “Thus, if the agency considers the factors and articulates a rational relationship between the facts found and the choice made, its decision is not arbitrary and capricious.” Id. (quoting Harris v. United States, 19 F.3d 1090, 1096 (5th Cir.1994)). The “agency’s decision need not be ideal, so long as the agency gave at least minimal consideration to relevant facts contained in the record.” Id. (quoting Harris, 19 F.3d at 1096). IV. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated NEPA and the NCA by adopting an FEIS that (a) failed to take a hard look at the adverse consequences the RBTI would have on the quality of both human and wildlife environments; (b) negligently or deliberately misrepresented, distorted, or undervalued comments, records, studies, and other documents used to formulate the FEIS; (c) failed to prepare a programmatic EIS which considered the quantitative adverse consequences and cumulative environmental harm of the RBTI’s full range of airspace proposals; (d) failed to consider other reasonable alternatives; (e) failed to adequately analyze the noise impacts of the RBTI; failed to propose adequate mitigation plans to reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of the increased noise levels of the RBTI; and failed to consider alternative single event noise metrics, rather than day/night noise averaging in urban communities, when evaluating the impact of the aircraft noise on rural residents; and, finally, (f) failed to adequately describe, establish, or justify how the proposed RBTI fulfills the need and purpose of air time saved, numbers of sorties reduced, and cost reductions realized when compared to current training routes. Plaintiffs seek judicial review of Defendants’ final decision to approve the modification and expansion of the existing MTRs and the establishment of the Lancer MOA pursuant to the FEIS and ROD, which Plaintiffs allege were adopted by Defendants in violation of NEPA, the NCA, and the Federal Aviation Act (“FAA”). Judicial Review NEPA was enacted to establish a national policy “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality [‘CEQ’].” 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (1994). In order to achieve these substantive goals, NEPA requires compliance with certain procedures before and during the undertaking of any project that affects the environment. See NEPA § 4332. See also Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (explaining that NEPA’s goals are achieved through “action-forcing” procedures which do not mandate particular results, but “simply prescribe[ ] the necessary process”). Thus, “[i]f the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350, 109 S.Ct. 1835. Under NEPA, adequate identification and evaluation of the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action require an agency to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of its actions, which includes a detailed EIS on (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. NEPA § 4332(2)(C). See also 40 C.F.R. § 1500, et seq. (2002) (setting forth the CEQ regulations expanding upon the appropriate form and content of an EIS). An EIS is intended to provide decisionmakers “with sufficiently detañed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the action in light of its environmental consequences and to provide the public with information and an opportunity to participate in the information gathering process.” Northwest Res. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 56 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir.1995). The EIS “insures the integrity of the agency process by forcing it to face those stubborn, difficult-to-answer objections without ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug and serves as an environmental full disclosure so that the public can weigh a project’s benefits against its environmental costs.” Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 12 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 772 F.2d 1043, 1049 (2d Cir.1985)) (internal quotations omitted). However, because NEPA does not contain provisions to determine whether agency action complies with NEPA’s necessary processes, compliance with NEPA is reviewed under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq. (1996). See Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1315 (9th Cir.1988) (concluding that “NEPA itself authorizes no private right of action, ... [b]ut the APA provides for judicial review of agency action” under § 702 of the APA). Judicial review of agency action under the APA requires a “thorough, probing, in-depth review” of the AR to determine “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 174,184 (Fed.Cl.1999). The APA provides the following scope of judicial review: To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall— (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. APA § 706. Because NEPA “exists to ensure a process, not a result,” Mississippi River Basin Alliance v. Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir.1998)), “the variability of this procedural requirement has produced grossly general and conflicting judicial pronouncements.” Trans-Am. Van Serv., Inc. v. United States, 421 F.Supp. 308, 318 (N.D.Tex.1976). Consequently, a number of courts began to expand the definition of the “whole record” before the court, but at the same time candidly recognized the narrow scope of review. Pub. Power Council v. Johnson, 674 F.2d 791, 793 (9th Cir.1982). See also County of Suffolk v. Sec’y of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1384 (2d Cir.1977) (acknowledging the rule of limited record review, then recognizing that the focus of judicial inquiry is not necessarily restricted to the administrative record). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has long held that expansion of the AR is appropriate when the record submitted fails to explain the basis for the agency’s action, thereby frustrating judicial review. Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-13, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973). Thus, the AR may be “supplemented, if necessary, by affidavits, depositions, or other proof of an explanatory nature.” Arkla Exploration Co. v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp., 734 F.2d 347, 357 (8th Cir.1984). “The new material, however, should be explanatory of the decisionmakers’ action at the time it occurred. No new rationalizations for the agency’s decision should be included.” Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 772-73 (1st Cir.1992). When adverse impacts are set forth in great detail in extra-record written submissions, “the court properly can consider this record in determining whether there exists a rational basis for the [agency] decision.” Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 398 F.Supp. 865, 874 (D.D.C. 1975). But cf. Smith v. FTC, 403 F.Supp. 1000, 1008 (D.C.Del.1975) (holding that, because the scope of review of agency matters is confined to the administrative record, discovery in the form of depositions from agency officials was improper and irrelevant). A court may also elect to allow extra-record evidence to determine whether an agency’s final action meets the test of rationality under the following circumstances: 1. when agency action is not adequately explained in the record before the court; 2. when the agency failed to consider factors which are relevant to its final decision; 3. when an agency considered evidence which it failed to include in the record; 4. when a case is so complex that a court needs more evidence to enable it to understand the issues clearly; 5. in cases where evidence arising after the agency action shows whether the decision was correct or not; 6. in cases where agencies are sued for a failure to take action; 7. in cases arising under NEPA; and 8. in cases where relief is at issue, especially at the preliminary injunction stage. ITT Fed. Servs. Corp., 45 Fed. Cl. at 185. Thus, an adequate record can sometimes only be determined “by looking outside the [AR] to see what the agency may have ignored.” County of Suffolk, 562 F.2d at 1384. It is well established that “[t]he burden of proving that an agency decision was arbitrary or capricious generally rests with the party seeking to overturn the agency decision.” Van Winkle, 197 F.Supp.2d at 596 (citing Sierra Club v. Marita, 46 F.3d 606, 619 (7th Cir.1995) and N.C. Alliance for Transp. Reform v. United States DOT, 151 F.Supp.2d 661, 679 (M.D.N.C.2001)). See also Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 818 (5th Cir.1975) (holding that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants have failed to adhere to the requirements of NEPA). In determining whether an agency’s action was arbitrary or capricious, the court must consider “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judg[ ]ment.” Dombeck, 161 F.Supp.2d at 1064 (quoting Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)). The agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962). However, “the Court is not allowed to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). It is also well established that a court may not set aside an agency’s action based on the exercise of the agency’s accumulated expertise merely because the court might reach a different result. Simeon Mgmt. Corp. v. FTC, 579 F.2d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.1978). If the analysis of the relevant documents “requires a high level of technical expertise, [courts] must defer to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. at 377, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, the Supreme Court will “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974). The Supreme Court has cited the following nonexclusive examples of circumstances which would normally be considered arbitrary and capricious: (1) the agency relied on factors which Congress had not intended the agency to consider; (2) the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem; (3) the agency offered an explanation for its decision that ran counter to the evidence before the agency; or (4) the agency’s decision is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. When reviewing challenges brought under APA § 706 regarding an agency’s compliance with NEPA, the Fifth Circuit set forth the following three criteria for determining the adequacy of an EIS: (1) whether the agency in good faith objectively has taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of a proposed action and alternatives; (2) whether the EIS provides detail sufficient to allow those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider the pertinent environmental influences involved; and (3) whether the EIS explanation of alternatives is sufficient to permit a reasoned choice among different courses of action. Miss. River Basin Alliance, 230 F.3d at 174. Information satisfying these criteria must be in the EIS and the conclusions upon which the EIS is based must be supported by evidence contained in the AR. Id. at 174-75. “[T]he judicial concern is whether the [EIS] is a good faith, objective, and reasonable presentation of the subject areas mandated by NEPA[] and that the court should not second-guess the experts.” Manygoats v. Kleppe, 558 F.2d 556, 560 (10th Cir.1977). A court “should intervene only when it is clearly determined that the agency’s determinations were irrational or unreasonable.” ITT Fed. Servs. Corp., 45 Fed. Cl. at 184. A. Hard Look Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ FEIS failed to take a hard look at the adverse consequences the RBTI would have on both human and wildlife environments and that Defendants negligently or deliberately misrepresented, distorted, or undervalued comments, records, studies, and other documents used to formulate the FEIS. First, Plaintiffs specifically complain that Defendants failed to adequately consider relevant information presented by the Heritage-Environmental Preservation Association, Inc. (“HEPA”). Plaintiffs fault Defendants for not including in the AR HEPA’s voluminous information gleaned from numerous experts in relevant fields. Plaintiffs complain that Defendants’ decision to include in the AR only the “cover letter” to HEPA’s additional expert information deprived the RBTI de-cisionmaker from considering other significant information. Second, Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants failed to adequately consider comments authored by William J. Weida (“Weida”), Professor of Economics, regarding the RBTI’s noise and route structures that were contained in the draft environmental impact statement (“DEIS”). Plaintiffs complain that the AR did not contain Weida’s statement included in the HEPA appendix. Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that similar comments authored by Weida were contained in the AR, Plaintiffs argue that the format was so reduced in size that Weida’s comments were nearly unreadable. Defendants point out that HEPA’s “cover letter,” which summarizes HEPA’s concerns with regard to the DEIS, is ninety-one pages in length and is included in the AR in its entirety. Defendants also point out that Weida’s fifty-five page commentary, which was submitted directly by him and included in the AR, is nearly identical to that commentary which Plaintiffs assert was not included in the AR for consideration, notwithstanding any differences in pagination or format. Thus, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants did not adequately consider HEPA’s and/or Weida’s information. Rather, Defendants argue that inclusion in the AR of HEPA’s ninety-one page overview of HEPA’s concerns, as well as Weida’s fifty-five page commentary submitted directly by him, placed before the decisionmaker information sufficient to take a hard look at the adverse environmental consequences of the RBTI as raised by HEPA and Weida. Judicial Determination When NEPA was enacted, Congress did not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations; rather, Congress required only that the agency take a hard look at the environmental consequences before taking a major action. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97, 103 S.Ct. 2246, 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983). This Court is, of course, mindful of the statutory requirement that the FEIS be a “detailed statement.” NEPA § 4332(2)(C). “However, the Court must also avoid placing extreme or unrealistic burdens on the compiling agency.” Isle of Hope Historical Ass’n, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs, 646 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (citing Morton, 510 F.2d at 819). An EIS “must be concise, clear, and to the point and written in plain language so that the public can easily understand it.” Van Winkle, 197 F.Supp.2d at 600 (citing Marita, 46 F.3d at 619). Compliance is to be judged against a “rule of reason.” Id. In short, this Court must follow a pragmatic standard which requires good faith objectivity but avoids “fly specking.” Lathan v. Brinegar, 506 F.2d 677, 693 (9th Cir.1974). Moreover, the CEQ regulations promulgated to help achieve the purposes of NEPA provide that “[a]ll substantive comments received on the draft statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement whether or not the comment is thought to merit individual discussion by the agency in the text of the statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(5)(b) (emphasis added). With the above criteria in mind, this Court is convinced that Defendants’ decision to include in the AR Weida’s fifty-five page commentary to the DEIS, which he submitted directly to Defendants, rather than the nearly identical comments of Wei-da offered by HEPA as an appendix, complies with the rule of reason and satisfies the goals of the APA and NEPA. This Court also finds that Defendants’ pragmatic decision to utilize HEPA’s ninety-one page summary “cover letter” entitled “Response to [RBTI DEIS] March 1999,” rather than the totality of the 698 pages offered by HEPA, was well within the strictures of the CEQ regulations and statutory mandates of NEPA. In addition, “it is entirely unreasonable to think that Congress intended for an impact statement to document every particle of knowledge that an agency might compile in considering the proposed action.” Van Winkle, 197 F.Supp.2d at 603 (quoting Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Eng’rs of the United States Army, 492 F.2d 1123, 1136 (5th Cir.1974)). “The detail required is that which is sufficient to enable those who did not have a part in [the EIS’s] compilation to understand and consider meaningfully the factors involved.” Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc., 492 F.2d at 1136. See also Sierra Club v. Watkins, 808 F.Supp. 852, 862 (D.D.C.1991) (concluding that “NEPA does not require a federal agency to consider and discuss every viewpoint in the scientific community on a given matter”). This Court is persuaded, therefore, that HEPA’s ninety-one-page “cover letter” and Weida’s comments, submitted directly by him to Defendants, were adequately considered by Defendants, were properly included in the AR, were sufficiently detailed so that others could meaningfully consider the factors involved, and, when judged against the rule of reason, fully complied with the mandates of NEPA. B. Baseline Plaintiffs claim that the FEIS (1) contains erroneous baseline information concerning current areas overflown; (2) presents conflicting information about the baseline year; (3) provides inconsistent sortie data; (4) contains the overinclusion of nonexistent operations; (5) provides conflicting information with regard to IR-102/141; (6) fails to include ATCAA information; and (7) misrepresents aerial refueling data. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ decision to approve the RBTI flies in the face of numerous inadequacies revealed in the baseline, noise analysis, and other related issues. Plaintiffs specifically complain that Defendants’ contention that Aternative B would include “about 15% new airspace” under IR-178 and “10 percent new airspace” under the Lancer MOA is contradicted by Defendants’ December 1999 “Biological Evaluation” which states that about “33 percent of the airspace includes new areas not previously overflown by military aircraft or consulted on. This includes IR-178 segments.... ” Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants failed to specifically define the baseline year and contend that the AR is silent as to how, why, or if the baseline year was changed from 1996 to 1997 or 1998. Additionally, Plaintiffs fault Defendants for presenting inconsistent sortie operations data. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ contradictions and inconsistencies regarding baseline figures necessarily render the FEIS materially flawed. Plaintiffs reason that if Defendants have misstated/overstated the baseline sortie operations, then any analysis of the various RBTI alternatives based on the baseline figures would likewise be dramatically altered. For example, Plaintiffs argue that historically only seventy-five percent of the scheduled 1,560 baseline sortie operations under the No Action alternative have actually been flown. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have significantly overstated the No Action baseline number. Consequently, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ claim that the RBTI’s 1,560 baseline sortie operations represent no change cannot be correct. Moreover, because the FEIS repeatedly acknowledges that individuals residing under MTRs are accustomed to a certain amount of noise from established overflights, Plaintiffs argue that any FEIS noise analysis comparing the inflated No Action baseline numbers against the RBTI’s baseline numbers must be faulty. Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants erroneously included in the baseline current and “approved impending” activities which significantly inflated the baseline and which, in turn, artificially deflated the noise changes calculated in the DEIS and FEIS. Plaintiffs argue that because the baseline is intended to reflect the status quo, Defendants should not have included as part of the baseline any approved impending activities which reflected a projected status, not a current status. Finally, Plaintiffs charge Defendants with completely omitting from the FEIS any environmental impact data with regard to aerial refueling. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ knowing exclusion of any information related to aerial refueling skews the results of any relevant analyses or other adverse effects to the environment which should have been considered by the decisionmaker. Defendants argue to the contrary that the FEIS clearly shows that the baseline (1) accurately reflects current airspace, (2) contains no conflicting information with regard to the baseline year, (3) reveals consistent sortie operations data, (4) does not include inapplicable nonexistent operations; (5) adequately analyzes the import of IR — 102/141; (6) includes applicable AT-CAA information; and (7) properly omits a discussion on aerial refueling. As to whether the AR accurately reflects the effects of flying activities in current airspace, Defendants specifically argue that Plaintiffs misapprehend the distinction between “frequency of use” of airspace and “management” of airspace. While Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs are correct that the FEIS indicates only three sorties per year on Reese 4 MOA and Reese 5 MOA, Defendants point out that each is defined as “primary” airspace, which consists of those MTRs and MOAs used by bombers from Barksdale AFB and Dyess AFB. In contrast, Defendants note that “secondary” airspace includes MTRs and MOAs that overlap or intersect with primary airspace but which are not used by Barksdale and Dyess AFBs. Defendants argue, as a consequence, that even though changes in the use of training assets from year to year (depending upon the number of flying hours allocated, changes in training and tactics, mission deployments to other areas, and limitations in supplies and maintenance requirements) will inevitably cause variations in the management of the affected airspace, no measurable impacts on the economic value of the underlying land are expected as a result of the implementation of the RBTI, because the frequency of use remains the same due to the same baseline number of sorties. Rather, Defendants argue, because the affected airspace has generally been overflown since the 1940s, other factors, such as drought, market prices, community amenities, and proximity to urban areas, are more likely to affect land values than RBTI aircraft overflights. Thus, Defendants argue that due consideration was given to the baseline information about current areas overflown and that the analysis used to develop the baseline was reasonable. As to the applicable baseline year, Defendants merely reference the FEIS, which consistently provides as follows: Actual Sortie-Operations Fiscal Year (“FT) 97: Actual counts of aircraft activities based on scheduling and usage information maintained by airspace managers formed the foundation for annual baseline sortie-operations.... Sortie-operations by all aircraft types ... documented as users of primary or secondary airspace are reflected in the FY 97 counts. Defendants argue that had they wished to inflate the baseline figures to “dramatically alter[ ] the change in noise outcomes and other analyses” as alleged by Plaintiffs, then Defendants could easily have relied on FY 96 which reflected a baseline of 2,785 scheduled sorties on IR-178 vis-a-vis 1,560 baseline sortie operations listed for FY 97. As to Plaintiffs’ arguments alleging inconsistent sortie data, Defendants contend that the FEIS was compiled from various sources over the entire course of the multi-year NEPA process and included preliminary drafts and working documents, some of which necessarily changed over time. Defendants argue that the FEIS includes the best information reasonably available to Defendants and that the baseline numbers are in no way inflated or purposefully misleading. Moreover, Defendants argue that even if mistakes were made in the final compilation of the FEIS, such mistakes were without significance. As to Plaintiffs’ complaint that the FEIS included baseline figures not only for current activities but also for activities already approved or proposed to occur within the RBTI area, Defendants explain that NEPA requires that all proposed activities must be compared against the No Action alternative in order to analyze the differences that would be experienced within the affected airspace at the time of implementation of the pending activities. In addition, Defendants note that each alternative also included the proposed sortie operations. By accounting for all the contributing noise levels in all four alternatives, both including and excluding the pending activities for each alternative, Defendants argue that the process revealed not only the new noise levels in the affected airspace but also provided the across-the-board change to the baseline noise level for all alternatives. As to Plaintiffs’ complaint that the sortie operations figures for IR-102/141 reveal discrepancies in the AR, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have selectively edited the numbers contained therein and have failed to identify the source of the data of which Plaintiffs complain. Defendants argue that even if Plaintiffs’ complaints were accepted as accurate, Plaintiffs’ own figures would represent a sortie operations increase discrepancy of only 2.4 percent over the entirety of IR-178. Even assuming, arguendo, that the 2.4 percent discrepancy is accurate, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have failed to show that such a discrepancy would have had a significant impact on the materiality of the FEIS or the outcome of the implementation of the RBTI. As to Plaintiffs’ claims that the “Comparison of Existing and Proposed Area Under Alternative B: IR-178/Lancer MOA” fails to adequately analyze the use of the ATCAA above the Lancer MOA and consequently highlights the errors of the baseline, Defendants explain that what is being compared is the footprint of the ground underlying the airspace, not the upper limits of the airspace in the Lancer MOA area. Moreover, Defendants point out that the FEIS indicates that the proposed changes to IR-178/Lancer MOA/AT-CAA would actually reduce the total amount of land under the airspace when compared to current conditions. Consequently, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. Finally, as to Plaintiffs’ complaint that Defendants completely omitted any discussion of the effects of aerial refueling on any noise data related to the underlying land tracts, Defendants agree that Plaintiffs’ statement is true. However, Defendants contend there is no significance to Plaintiffs’ comments regarding this issue because aerial refueling tracks are defined as airspace normally at or above 20,000 MSL. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any relevant adverse environmental noise impacts related to aerial refueling that should have been considered by the decisionmaker. Judicial Determination The CEQ intended that agencies compare the potential impacts of a proposed major federal action to the known impacts of maintaining the status quo. Ass’n of Pub. Agency Customers, Inc. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 126 F.3d 1158, 1188 (9th Cir.1997). In other words, requiring consideration of the No Action alternative constitutes use of the current level of activity as a benchmark. See Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s [NEPA] Regulations, 46 Fed.Reg, 18,026 (Mar. 23, 1981). However, while informed and meaningful consideration of reasonable alternatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme, Friends of Southeast’s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1065 (9th Cir.1998), this Court notes, and Plaintiffs specifically acknowledge, that “[a] baseline is not an independent legal requirement.” 54 Fed.Reg. 23,756 (1989). The Court also notes that even though NEPA is rigorous in its requirements, it does not require perfection or the impossible. Envtl. Defense Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 492 F.2d 466, 468 n. 1 (6th Cir.1974) (citations omitted). “[N]o matter how well the EIS has been written, someone later can always find fault with it.” Mason County Med. Ass’n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 265 (6th Cir.1977). “This does not mean that every Environmental Assessment containing factual inaccuracies will have to be redone.” Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 643 (7th Cir.1986). Here, as in all proposed major federal actions, the EIS is intended to provide the decisionmaker “with sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the action in light of its environmental consequences and to provide the public with information and an opportunity to participate in the information gathering process.” Northwest Res. Info. Ctr., Inc., 56 F.3d at 1064. With respect to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants’ artificially inflated baseline numbers skewed, inter alia, the outcomes of related noise analyses, this Court finds that Defendants’ figures as to the scheduled and actual operations of the No Action alternative reasonably represented the status quo against which the remaining alternatives under the RBTI could be compared. This Court believes that the alleged disparity, if any, between the scheduled and actual sortie operations of Alternative A was not of such significance that the numbers misled the decisionmaker and/or the public when comparing the No Action alternative against the three remaining RBTI action alternatives under consideration. With respect to Plaintiffs’ contentions that the AR is unclear as to which year constitutes the baseline year for comparison of the No Action alternative against the remaining action alternatives under consideration, this Court finds that the AR reflects that both the DEIS and the FEIS consistently referenced FY 97 as the baseline year considered by the decisionmaker. The DEIS states that the “[ajctual count of aircraft activities based on scheduling and usage information maintained by airspace managers formed the foundation for annual baseline sortie-operations.... Sortie-operations by all aircraft types ... documented as users of primary or secondary airspace are reflected in the FY 97 counts.” The FEIS also indicates: “Actual Sortie-Operations Fiscal Year (FY) 97: Actual counts of aircraft activities based on scheduling and usage information maintained by airspace managers formed the foundation for annual baseline sortie-operations.” Although the Court is cognizant that the AR originally indicated that FY 96 was the initial default baseline year during the early months of the evolutionary process necessary to complete the RBTI EIS, the Court nevertheless concludes that Defendants’ change to the FY 97 baseline year was consistently reflected in the DEIS and conspicuously reflected thereafter in the FEIS. Finally, with respect to Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants’ failure to (1) adequately assess the use of the ATCAA above the Lancer MOA and (2) include any analysis of the effects of aerial refueling distorted the accuracy of the relevant baseline numbers, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit. First. The AR clearly reveals that a comparison of the existing and proposed areas under Alternative B were considered by Defendants. Indeed, the AR shows that although the proposed Lancer MOA/AT-CAA would expand the upper and lower limits of the airspace in the RBTI area, the relevant footprint of the area underlying the Lancer MOA/ATCAA would actually be reduced when compared to current conditions. Second. Defendants acknowledge that the FEIS omits any discussion of the effects of aerial refueling on the areas underlying the refueling tracks but contend that there is no significance regarding Plaintiffs’ dispute as to this issue. This Court agrees. The AR clearly defines aerial refueling tracks as “airspace of defined dimensions, vertical and lateral, established to conduct aerial refueling operations ... normally accomplished at or above 20,000 MSL.” Plaintiffs have failed to show what, if any, adverse impacts of aerial refueling at that altitude should have been considered by the RBTI decisionmaker. In order to assess Plaintiffs’ complaints vis-a-vis Defendants’ presentation of the various baseline operations information while adhering to a pragmatic standard which requires good faith objectivity but avoids “fly specking,” Lathan, 506 F.2d at 693, this Court specifically considered the adequacy, practicability, and reasonableness of Defendants’ baseline information and balanced Defendants’ information against Plaintiffs’ specific objections, as well as the broad purposes of NEPA. The Court also considered counsel’s oral arguments presented on January 29, 2003, regarding the appropriate baseline. While this Court is cognizant that Defendants have a duty to ensure the accuracy of the information placed before the decisionmaker, Van Abbema, 807 F.2d at 642, this Court is not convinced that Defendants were indifferent to the facts or that Defendants’ presentation of the baseline information was conflicting, inconsistent, overinclusive, underinclusive, contradictory, arbitrary, capricious, and/or purposefully included inaccurate data. Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs’ allegations with regard to any alleged discrepancies were true, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that such discrepancies would have materially affected the deci-sionmaker’s evaluation of the RBTI. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the AR’s inadequate baseline must fail. C. Purpose/Need The RBTI’s purported purpose is to establish a set of linked training assets (1) to permit aircrews from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, and Dyess AFB, Texas, to train for various missions while maximizing combat training time; (2) to provide linkage of airspace and other assets that support realistic training of bomber aircrews; and (3) to ensure flexibility and variability in the training of support bomber combat missions. Realistic, integrated training (a) ensures that bomber aircrews possess the skills and preparedness necessary for combat events, (b) links a realistic sequence of training activities into a cohesive mission, and (c) hones aircrew teamwork. Defendants’ alleged need for the RBTI is based on the current l