City of Bridgeton v. FAA

Nos. 98-3506 et al. (212 F.3d 448) (8th Cir. April 7, 2000)

ELR Digest

The court holds that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) decision approving the proposed expansion of the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport was not arbitrary or capricious. The court first holds that the FAA complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandate that the final environmental impact study (FEIS) include a suitable discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. The FAA examined eight expansion alternatives plus a no-action alternative and off-site options. The petitioners argued that four of the alternatives should have been included in the FEIS' detailed environmental analysis. However, two alternatives were reasonably excluded because of high costs and constructability concerns. A third alternative would not satisfy the airport expansion purpose of constructing runways with simultaneous arrival capacity in bad weather, and the fourth alternative was lacking in specificity and was not better than a substantially similar alternative discussed in the FEIS. The court next holds that the FAA's FEIS properly addressed the adverse impact of the increased aircraft overflight noise and their mitigation.

The court further holds that the FAA properly decided that the expansion's noise impacts will not be a use of an adjacent neighborhood's natural and historic resources as defined by Transportation Act § 4(f). Similarly, the court holds that the FAA's § 4(f) analysis properly concluded that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to destroying or constructively using public parks and historic properties in an adjacent neighborhood. Finally, the court holds that even though the airport expansion conflicts with a neighboring town's development plan, the FAA did not violate the Airport and Airway Improvement Act requirement that an airport project be consistent with the plans of state agencies that have the authority to plan for the development of communities surrounding airports. The FAA consulted a regional planning commission, and the legislative history of the Act reveals that Congress did not intend to allow one lone local community to hold the national airspace system hostage.

A dissenting judge would hold that the FAA's FEIS did not comply with NEPA, and that the FAA's consistency determination did not satisfy the Airport and Airway ImprovementAct.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (28 pp., ELR Order No. L-205).

Counsel for Petitioners
Michael R. Annis
Law Offices of Michael R. Annis
720 Olive St., St. Louis MO 63101
(314) 421-3850/3864

Counsel for Respondents
Nicholas Garaufis
Federal Aviation Administration
600 W. Service Rd., Washington DC 20553
(202) 661-8160

[30 ELR 20492]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]