Lexplug logoLexplug

Grand Canyon Trust v. Federal Aviation Administration

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
290 F.3d 339 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency's environmental assessment (EA) for a proposed project must evaluate the project's cumulative impact by considering the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. An EA is inadequate if it only analyzes the project's incremental impact in isolation or compares it only to a no-action alternative.


Facts:

  • The City of St. George, Utah, a growing retirement community, determined its existing airport was insufficient to meet projected air-traffic demand.
  • Geographic constraints prevented the expansion of the existing airport, leading the city and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to seek a new site.
  • The preferred site for the replacement airport is located approximately 25 miles from Zion National Park, an area prioritized for its natural quiet.
  • Zion National Park is already subject to noise from approximately 250 daily overflights from aircraft not associated with the St. George airport.
  • Other regional airports with flights near or over the Park have planned expansions, and air tours also contribute to the noise environment in the Park.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) worked with the City of St. George, Utah, to develop a plan for a replacement airport.
  • The FAA prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and, in response to public comments, conducted a Supplemental Noise Analysis.
  • The FAA issued a final EA and a Record of Decision with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), concluding that a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required.
  • The Grand Canyon Trust petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the FAA's decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Aviation Administration's Environmental Assessment for a new airport violate the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider the cumulative noise impact on a nearby national park, instead focusing only on the incremental noise impact of the new airport compared to the existing one?


Opinions:

Majority - Rogers, Circuit Judge

Yes. The FAA's Environmental Assessment violates the National Environmental Policy Act because it failed to take a 'hard look' at the cumulative noise impacts on Zion National Park. The FAA's analysis was legally deficient because it only considered the incremental noise increase from the proposed airport compared to the existing airport, rather than aggregating the project's impact with the noise from all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable sources affecting the Park. Under regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which are binding on the FAA, a cumulative impact analysis requires assessing the project's incremental impact 'when added to other... actions.' By focusing solely on the small percentage increase in flights attributable to the new airport, the FAA viewed the project in a vacuum and failed to provide a realistic evaluation of the total noise impact. Without analyzing the aggregate noise level, the FAA could not make a convincing case that the project would have no significant environmental impact, rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces that a federal agency cannot satisfy its NEPA obligations by analyzing a project's environmental effects in isolation. It solidifies the mandatory nature of the CEQ's cumulative impact regulations, requiring agencies to consider the total environmental context, including the combined effects of multiple actions. The ruling makes it more difficult for agencies to approve projects near sensitive environmental areas by issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on a narrow, incremental analysis. Future environmental assessments must now more rigorously aggregate a project's impacts with all other relevant environmental stressors to determine significance.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Grand Canyon Trust v. Federal Aviation Administration (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Grand Canyon Trust v. Federal Aviation Administration