ELR Citation: ELR 20811
No(s). 73-1784 (9th Cir. Sep 10, 1973)

Construction of the reef runway extension at the Honolulu International Airport may proceed since the requirements of NEPA and the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 (AADA) have been met. The substantive content of the NEPA impact statement is adequate in that it does not evidence arbitrary agency action or an abuse of discretion. FAA could properly delegate partial responsibility for preparation of the EIS to a consulting firm with a financial interest in the project since NEPA requires good faith objectivity rather than subjective impartiality. The requirements of the AADA are satisfied because the record shows that the Secretary of Transportation had a reasonable basis for believing there were no feasible alternatives to the runway project.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Brook Hart
Suite 433
735 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Counsel for Defendants
Peter Steenland
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Warren Higa Deputy Attorney General
State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813