Barnes v. United States Department of Transportation
655 F.3d 1124
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Port of Portland's Hillsboro Airport (HIO) expansion, skipping an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Petitioners allege NEPA violations, chiefly the failure to analyze environmental impacts of increased demand from a new runway and the lack of a public hearing under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act.
- HIO Master Plan forecasted rising aviation demand and delays; the Port proposed a parallel 3,600-foot runway with related taxiways and infrastructure to reduce congestion.
- The FAA adopted the Master Plan forecast in the Draft/Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued the FONSI after a public comment process and a public meeting.
- Petitioners argued the EA failed to assess indirect effects (growth-inducing demand), cumulative impacts (including zoning changes), and an appropriate range of alternatives; Port intervened in support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA NEPA analysis properly addressed growth-inducing effects | Barnes argued the EA failed to analyze increased demand from a new runway. | FAA/Port claimed no increased demand would result from capacity expansion; experts defer to forecasts. | Remand to consider environmental impact of increased demand under 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). |
| Whether the FAA met public-hearing requirements under the Airport Act | Petitioners alleged the process lacked a proper public hearing. | FAA Order 5050.4B defines a public hearing and the meeting satisfied that standard. | Public hearing satisfied under 49 U.S.C. § 47106; remand not needed on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2000) (growth-inducing effects require consideration in EIS analysis)
- Seattle Cmty. Council Fed'n v. FAA, 961 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1992) (runway-related changes may not require growth-inducing analysis; context matters)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998) (growth-inducing effects not required where project addresses existing problems)
- City of Los Angeles v. FAA, 138 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1998) (airfield/airport actions and FAA's discretion in forecasting and analysis)
- Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2005) (growth-inducing effects may trigger EIS when significant questions are raised)
- Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2003) (hard look at environmental consequences requirement under NEPA)