## Facts

- Kahului Airport on Maui had a runway that could accommodate large aircraft landings but limited fully loaded departures because of insufficient length.
- The Hawaii Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed to extend the main runway by about 2,600 feet and to strengthen and repave the runway surface.
- Environmental groups asserted the expansion would increase international service and raise the risk of introducing alien (non-indigenous) species to Maui.
- The FAA and the State prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing alien species pathways and risks, including a biological assessment by an expert panel recommending mitigation.
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion finding the project was not likely to jeopardize listed species.
- The EIS found the project’s incremental effect on alien species introductions was insignificant, but recognized a significant cumulative effect given Hawaii’s broader alien-species problem.
- The FAA approved the project in a Record of Decision (ROD), conditioning approval on mitigation measures.
- Petitioners sought review, alleging NEPA violations and a violation of § 4(f) based on alleged harm to Haleakalā National Park from overflights and alien species.

## Issues

1. Whether the FAA violated NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at alien-species risks (including effects tied to increased international flights) and by relying on allegedly inadequate mitigation.
2. Whether the runway project constituted a § 4(f) “use” (including constructive use) of Haleakalā National Park, triggering the requirement to show no feasible and prudent alternative and to minimize harm.

## Decision

- The petition for review was denied and the FAA’s ROD was upheld.
- The court held the FAA complied with NEPA because the EIS contained extensive analysis of alien-species impacts, addressed direct and cumulative effects, and discussed mitigation.
- The court held NEPA did not require a fully developed or legally enforceable mitigation plan in the EIS, and the FAA’s conditioning of approval on mitigation supported adequacy.
- The court held petitioners failed to show the project would substantially impair Haleakalā National Park’s protected values; therefore, there was no § 4(f) use and § 4(f)’s heightened findings were not triggered.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires a reasonably thorough discussion and consideration of environmental effects (“hard look”), but it is procedural and does not mandate particular substantive outcomes.
- An agency’s NEPA compliance is reviewed under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard; courts generally defer to agency scientific judgments if the agency considered relevant data and explained its decision.
- NEPA requires discussion of mitigation, but does not require a complete or enforceable mitigation plan in the EIS; conditioning approval on mitigation may support the agency’s decision.
- Section 4(f) applies only when a transportation project “uses” protected parkland; constructive use requires adverse impacts that substantially impair the property’s protected activities, features, or attributes.
- A plaintiff must show a clear, project-attributable increase in harm sufficient to constitute substantial impairment; an incremental contribution to a preexisting broader problem is not, by itself, a constructive use.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the FAA’s approval of the runway extension because the agency adequately analyzed alien-species risks and mitigation under NEPA and because the asserted effects on Haleakalā National Park did not amount to a § 4(f) constructive use requiring additional statutory findings.


Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 222 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2000)