NEPA

Adequacy of EA/FONSI

Study Area

The plaintiffs argued that the study areas used for the analysis in the EA were not large enough to capture the full scope of environmental impacts of the project. The EA used two study areas: a “detailed study area” (the area where direct physical impacts could occur) and a “general study area” (the area for analyzing impacts to resources that were regional in scope and scale, such as noise, land use, socioeconomics, parks, and historic sites). First, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the analysis in the EA was flawed because the study areas did not conform to FAA’s manual for environmental impact analysis (FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference). The court explained that the manual clearly stated that it was nonbinding guidance and thus FAA was not required to comply with it. Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that FAA should have created individualized study areas for different impact categories. The court found that the EA adequately justified the parameters of the general study area by explaining that it was based on the region around the airport that would be affected by noise and the area through which project-related traffic was expected to travel. Third, the court upheld the scope of the EA’s analysis of socioeconomic, land use, and hazardous materials impacts because the EA provided a reasonable explanation of the study area’s parameters and the plaintiffs did not articulate why the study areas should have been expanded for those topics. Finally, the court upheld the scope of the air quality analysis. Although the plaintiffs argued that the general study area was too small to assess the project’s air quality impacts, the court noted that the EA actually evaluated air quality impacts in the entire air basin, not just the general study area.

Cumulative Impacts

The plaintiffs argued that FAA did not sufficiently assess the project’s cumulative impacts. First, the plaintiffs asserted that FAA should have considered the combined impacts of more than 80 additional projects. The court found that the record demonstrated that FAA did, in fact, consider the traffic impacts from these projects, and the plaintiffs did not identify any other specific impacts of these projects that FAA should have considered. Second, the plaintiffs alleged that the EA’s analysis of cumulative air quality impacts was deficient because it did not provide estimates of the combined emissions of the project and other nearby projects. The court held that this information was not required, and there was no evidence that the emissions of any of the cumulative projects would exceed the local air district’s project-specific emissions thresholds for significant impacts. Third, the plaintiffs claimed that FAA should have provided quantifiable data about cumulative impacts. The court explained, however, that quantified data is not always required in a cumulative effects analysis; rather, an EA or EIS must include either quantified data or detailed information. The court found that the EA provided adequately detailed information about cumulative impacts.

Relationship to State Environmental Review

The plaintiffs argued that FAA should have prepared an EIS because the environmental impact report that SBIAA had prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) concluded that the project “would cause significant and unavoidable impacts.” The court explained that “CEQA and NEPA are different statutes with different requirements”; SBIAA’s findings that the project would have significant impacts under CEQA did not necessarily mean the project would have significant effects under NEPA. The court held that the CEQA findings did not “raise substantial questions as to whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment” under NEPA:

• Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The plaintiffs asserted that an EIS was required because the CEQA environmental impact report found that emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases would exceed the local air district’s significance thresholds. The court upheld FAA’s determination that the project’s criteria pollutant emissions would not cause a significant environmental effect, noting the project’s compliance with general conformity requirements: the local air district had determined that the project’s emissions were within the general conformity budgets in the state implementation plan (SIP) and thus that the project would satisfy general conformity requirements. The court also held that it was reasonable for the EA to conclude that greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible—and did not warrant an EIS—because they would comprise less than 1 percent of U.S. emissions.
• Noise Impacts. The plaintiffs also asserted that an EIS was required because residential noise impacts were found to be significant in the CEQA environmental impact report. The court held that this impact did not require preparation of an EIS because they would be mitigated: the EA noted that the SBIAA was planning to acquire adjacent properties to mitigate these noise impacts.
• Truck Trips. The plaintiffs argued that the EA was deficient because it did not explain why it estimated a different number of truck trips than the amount stated in the CEQA environmental impact report. The court held that the EA adequately explained the methodology that FAA used for calculating total truck trips (the total packages arriving daily was divided by the average package size and by the number of packages that could fit in each truck). The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that FAA’s methodology was improper or that FAA relied on erroneous data.

Truck Emissions

The plaintiffs argued that the EA underestimated truck emissions by half because the modeling program estimated one-way trips, not round trips. The EA explained that FAA performed further analysis on the modeling outputs to calculate total round trip truck traffic emissions, and staff from the local air district reviewed the results and confirmed FAA’s calculations were correct. The court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that FAA’s emissions calculations and analysis were incorrect.

The plaintiffs also asserted that the EA contained conflicting information about the number of truck trips generated by the project. The court stated that the discrepancy appeared to be due to the conversion of truck trips to “passenger car equivalents” for the traffic analysis. The court held that although FAA could have been clearer about the different numbers cited in the EA, the plaintiffs had not raised a legitimate concern about the truck trip emissions calculations.

California and Federal Environmental Standards

The plaintiffs argued that the EA was deficient because it did not consider whether the project would violate federal and state air quality standards.

• State Air Quality Standards. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the EA did not assess the project’s compliance with state air quality standards. The court explained that the plaintiffs’ argument failed because they did not “specifically articulate a potential violation” of any state air quality standard. The court also found that the EA did, in fact, discuss state air quality standards. Although the EA did not explicitly state whether the project would violate the California air quality standards, the court concluded that there was “no reason to believe that a . . . violation is likely to occur and no reason to believe that the EA failed to consider whether the project threatens a violation.”
• Federal Ozone Standards. The court held that the EA adequately assessed the project’s compliance with federal ozone standards. The court was persuaded by the EA’s explanation that the project would not jeopardize timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone because the local air district confirmed that the project’s emissions of ozone precursors were within the general conformity budget in the SIP. The court found that a letter from the air district established the project’s conformity with both the 1997 and 2008 federal ozone standards. The air district’s letter also addressed how the project could meet the 2015 federal ozone standard by submitting information on the project’s emissions for inclusion in the next SIP’s emissions inventory.
• State Greenhouse Gas Standards. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the EA did not assess the project’s compliance with California laws and executive orders setting statewide greenhouse gas targets. The CEQA analysis recognized that the project would not likely violate these standards; the court reasoned that this “suggest[ed] that there is no risk of such a violation.” Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not articulate how the project would violate these laws and executive orders. The court therefore concluded that there was “no reason to believe that the EA [was] deficient for purportedly failing to explicitly discuss the project’s adherence to California” greenhouse gas standards.