Case Law Details
National Parks and Conservation Association v. USDOT
Project Description:
The Kahului Airport, on the island of Maui, planned to extend its main runway by 2,600 feet in order to allow large passenger airplanes to take off with a full load of passengers, cargo and fuel. The project would also strengthen and repave the existing portion of the runway.
222 F.3d 677
222 F.3d 677
U.S. Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit
07/26/2000
Kahului Airport Runway Extension
Airport
Case Summary
The National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) challenged the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approving expansion of the main runway at Kahului Airport on Maui in Hawaii. The NPCA claimed that FAA violated NEPA in issuing the ROD, claiming that the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) prepared for the project failed to consider adequately the possible introduction of alien plant species into Maui as a result of the increase in arriving flights made possible by the improvements to the runway authorized in the ROD. NPCA also alleged that FAA violated Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f)) by failing to consider the constructive use of Haleakala National Park by the additional flights over the Park resulting from the runway improvements. The Ninth Circuit found no violation of either NEPA or Section 4(f) and dismissed the petition for review.
Key Holdings
NEPA
Invasive Species. The Court of Appeals rejected NPCA’s claim that the FAA failed to take a “hard look” at the possible increase in the introduction of alien species into Maui. In rejecting NPCA’s argument that the EIS failed to consider the increased risk of introduction of alien species through increased international arrivals allowed by the project, the court noted that the EIS is “replete with data” on the “impact of international arrivals.”
Mitigation Measures. The Court rejected NPCA’s claim that NEPA requires mitigation plans to be legally enforceable. The court noted that the Supreme Court, in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352-53 (1989), held that NEPA did not require an agency to include a complete or enforceable mitigation plan. Here the court stated that it had “no difficulty concluding that the mitigation measures included in the EIS are sufficient to satisfy NEPA.” The court noted that FAA had conditioned its approval of the runway on implementation of mitigation measures designed to address the importation of alien species into Maui.
Section 4(f)
Use of 4(f) property. NPCA claimed that the potential increased introduction of alien species constituted a “use” of Haleakla National Park. The court found, however, that NPCA had failed to establish that the runway extension would “so increase the rate of alien species introduction as to substantially impair” the economic or environmental value of the park. The court held that FAA’s determination that the project would not “use” the park was not arbitrary or capricious.
File Attachment
Download the decision