Safeguarding Historic Hanscom Area's Irreplaceable Resources, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14262
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Hanscom Field is a Massachusetts airport with nearby historic sites, and Massport proposed demolishing Hangar 24 to build an FBO facility.
- Hangar 24, built in 1948, had been vacant since 2001 after MIT deemed it unsuitable for use.
- FAA prepared an environmental assessment (EA) addressing environmental and historic impacts and approved demolition and replacement as the prudent course.
- Four alternatives were evaluated: do nothing, locate a new hangar elsewhere on the airport (East Ramp), adaptively reuse Hangar 24, and replace Hangar 24 as proposed.
- Petitioners argued the FAA violated the Transportation Act § 4(f), NHPA, and NEPA; the FAA found no prudent alternative and concluded harms would be minimized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FAA properly apply section 4(f) prudence analysis? | Save Our Heritage contends alternatives were imprudently rejected without proper analysis. | FAA conducted a reasoned, comprehensive prudence review within statutory goals of safety and efficiency. | FAA prudently rejected all alternatives as imprudent. |
| Did FAA adequately minimize harm under section 4(f)(2)? | Minimization measures were insufficient given remaining alternatives. | FAA considered feasible harm-minimizing steps consistent with approved scope; no further feasible measures required. | FAA satisfied 4(f)(2) minimization obligations. |
| Did FAA comply with NHPA section 106 requirements? | Area of potential effects and alternatives did not adequately consider historic properties beyond Hangar 24. | Consultation process was properly initiated; no additional effects on protected properties identified; MOA mitigation addressed concerns. | NHPA requirements were satisfied. |
| Was FAA's NEPA analysis adequate for environmental impacts, including noise? | FAA failed to thoroughly quantify cumulative noise impacts and relied on outdated data. | FAA considered relevant factors, projected reasonable cumulative impacts, and used a defensible worst-case framework. | NEPA analysis was adequate; no significant impact found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Save Our Heritage, Inc. v. FAA, 269 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2001) (4(f) analysis requires prudent alternatives; agency may cumulate factors)
- Back Bay v. FAA, 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006) (deference to agency minimization determinations; 4(f) analysis and reasonable alternatives)
- Eagle Found., Inc. v. Dole, 813 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1987) (contextual approach to 4(f) analysis; avoid rigid overreading)
- City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2000) (doubt whether 4(f) requires rigid least-harm standard in airport expansions)
- Conservation Law Found. v. Fed. Hwy. Admin., 24 F.3d 1465 (1st Cir. 1994) (NEPA/4(f) analysis; deference to agency's factual findings)