ELR Citation: ELR 20257
No(s). 3-86-0913 (M.D. Tenn. May 29, 1987)

The court holds that an environmental assessment (EA) by defendants Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and city airport authority under the National Environmental Policy Act for expansion of the Nashville airport was not improperly fragmented or incomplete, and did not arbitrarily reject the alternative of a new airport. In 1980, defendants completed an EA for a proposed new terminal at the airport, and FAA subsequently made a finding of no significant impact. In 1985, defendants decided to build a new runway and to expand the new terminal beyond the size that had been contemplated in the 1980 EA, and FAA began preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to build a new runway. Plaintiffs argue that the EA was flawed because it failed to consider the environmental effects of the new runway and improperly rejected the alternative of building an entirely new airport, and that the EA should have been supplemented to include consideration of the proposed expansion of the new terminal.

The court holds that the EA was not inadequate for failure to consider the possible runway. Although construction of the new runway was not merely hypothetical at the time the EA was prepared, it did not yet constitute a "proposal" requiring environmental review; the runway facilities in 1980 were adequate for the foreseeable future, while the terminal was not. The court holds that FAA's decision to reject the alternative of constructing a completely new airport was not arbitrary and capricious, since the city airport authority had long ago decided to pursue expansion of the old airport, and such expansion would apparently result in no adverse environmental impacts. The court also holds that the proposed construction of the new terminal and new runway were not connected or cumulative actions requiring contemporaneous consideration in the EA. The actions are not connected because the new terminal did not "trigger" the new runway, did not require prior or simultaneous construction of the new runway, and did not require implementation of an earlier comprehensive plan by the city airport authority that had called for both the new terminal and the runway. The two actions are not cumulative because they were not proposed together. Nor was consideration of the cumulative impacts of the two actions necessary, because at the time of the EA it was thought that a new runway would not be needed for another 10 years; FAA's determination that the runway construction would not occur within the "reasonably foreseeable future" was therefore not arbitrary and capricious.

Even assuming that the supplementation provisions of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality apply to EAs as well as to EISs, the court holds that the proposal in 1985 to expand the new terminal beyond the size originally considered in the EA did not require supplementation. Under an FAA order, the redesign of terminal facilities constitutes a categorical exclusion from otherwise required environmental analysis, unless the redesign is highly controversial on environmental grounds. It is the anticipated increase in flights resulting from a major airline's use of the expanded facilities as a hub, and not the redesign itself, that is controversial. Finally, the court holds that FAA's decision to proceed directly to preparation of an EIS for the new runway without first performing an EA was not arbitrary and capricious.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
William M. Barrick
Bruce & Barrick
500 Church St., Nashville TN 37219
(615) 255-0050

Counsel for Defendants
Gina R. Belt
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2764