## Facts

- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) evaluated a proposal to approve a replacement airport for the City of St. George, Utah, to address projected demand that exceeded the capacity of the existing airport, which could not be expanded due to geographic constraints.
- The replacement airport site was selected after consideration of multiple site alternatives and a no-action alternative; the preferred site was approximately 25 miles southwest of Zion National Park.
- The FAA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA and, after public comments, conducted a supplemental noise analysis focused on noise impacts to Zion National Park.
- The FAA’s noise work largely compared the replacement airport’s noise effects to those of the existing St. George airport and concluded impacts on the Park would be negligible and not significant.
- The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and a Record of Decision approving actions that would allow construction of the replacement airport without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Grand Canyon Trust petitioned for review, asserting the FAA’s EA and FONSI were inadequate because they did not evaluate cumulative noise impacts on the Park’s natural quiet.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA and CEQ regulations required the FAA’s EA to evaluate cumulative noise impacts on Zion National Park’s natural quiet, rather than limiting review to incremental noise changes between the existing and replacement airports.
2. Whether the FAA’s FONSI and decision not to prepare an EIS were arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency did not take a hard look at cumulative noise from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable sources.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review.
- The court held the FAA’s EA and FONSI were inadequate because they failed to assess cumulative noise impacts on Zion National Park’s natural quiet as required by NEPA and CEQ regulations.
- The court set aside the FAA’s approval and remanded for further proceedings consistent with NEPA, including proper cumulative-impacts analysis.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look at environmental consequences when determining whether a proposed action may significantly affect the environment.
- Under CEQ regulations, “cumulative impact” includes the incremental impact of the agency action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
- An EA and FONSI may be set aside as arbitrary and capricious when the agency’s analysis omits a required cumulative-impacts evaluation relevant to determining significance and the need for an EIS.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the FAA could not rely on an EA and FONSI that assessed only the incremental noise effects of a replacement airport relative to an existing airport; NEPA required analysis of cumulative noise impacts on Zion National Park’s natural quiet, so the approval was set aside and remanded for further NEPA-compliant review.


Grand Canyon Tr. v. FAA, 290 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2002)