Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01154/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Aviation Administration
Respondent
Grand Canyon Trust
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 11, 2002 Decided May 24, 2002

No. 01-1154

Grand Canyon Trust,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Aviation Administration,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Aviation Administration

Robin Cooley argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioner. Mary-Lynn Sferrazza entered an appearance.

Ellen J. Durkee, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,

argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was

Alice B. Thurston, Attorney.

Before: Edwards, Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 1 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Rogers, Circuit Judge: The Grand Canyon Trust petitions

for review of the decision of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") approving the federal actions necessary to allow

the city of St. George, Utah, to construct a replacement

airport near Zion National Park. The Trust challenges the

adequacy of the FAA's environmental assessment under

s 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. s 4332(C) (1970), and the FAA's conclusion that there would be no significant environmental impacts

from the project necessitating preparation of an environmental impact statement under NEPA. Focusing on the noise

impacts on the Park, the Trust principally contends that the

FAA failed adequately to consider the cumulative impact on

the natural quiet of the Park and instead addressed only the

incremental impact of the replacement airport. We grant the

petition.

I.

In 1995, the FAA began working with the City of St.

George, Utah, to determine the feasibility of continuing use of

the existing airport as compared to development of a new

airport at a new site. A growing retirement community and

projected air-traffic demand was outstripping the capacity of

the existing airport, which could not be expanded due to

geographic constraints. Three sites in addition to a no-action

alternative were examined. In response to comments on a

draft environmental assessment, the FAA conducted a Supplemental Noise Analysis on the potential noise impacts of the

replacement airport on Zion National Park ("the Park"). The

Park is located approximately 25 miles northeast of St.

George and is the preferred replacement airport alternative.

The FAA concluded that the noise impacts on the Park

from the replacement airport would be negligible and insignificant. On January 30, 2001, the FAA approved the final

environmental assessment, concluding that an environmental

impact statement was unnecessary, and issued the record of

decision, setting forth actions, determinations, and approvals

that will allow St. George to construct the replacement airUSCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 2 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

port. It is the determination underlying this record of decision, that the proposed action will not significantly affect the

environment of the Park, that the Trust challenges.

II.

The essential disagreement between the parties is whether

the FAA was required in its environmental assessment to

address more than the incremental impact of the replacement

airport as compared to the existing airport. NEPA requires

federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement ("EIS") for "every ... major Federal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42

U.S.C. s 4332(2)(C). An environmental assessment ("EA") is

made for the purpose of determining whether an EIS is

required. See 40 C.F.R. s 1508.9. "If any 'significant' environmental impacts might result from the proposed agency

action then an EIS must be prepared before agency action is

taken." Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.

Cir. 1983) ("Peterson").

An agency decision that an EIS is not required may be

overturned "only if it was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of

discretion." Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of Transportation, 753 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("Transportation").

Under the long-established standard in this circuit, the court

reviews an agency's finding of no significant impact to determine whether:

First, the agency [has] accurately identified the relevant

environmental concern. Second, once the agency has

identified the problem it must have taken a 'hard look' at

the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of

no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to

make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the

agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds

that the changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently

reduce the impact to a minimum.

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 3 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Id. at 127; see also Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park and Planning Comm'n v. U.S. Postal Serv., 487 F.2d 1029, 1040 (D.C.

Cir. 1973).

The Trust does not dispute that the FAA properly defined

the relevant environmental concern of noise impacts from

aircraft on the Park. Rather, the Trust contends that the

FAA cannot be said to have taken a "hard look" at the

problem when it considered only the incremental impacts of

the replacement airport and not the total noise impact that

will result from the relocated airport. The Trust notes that

the EA does not address the cumulative impact in light of

other air flights over the Park, air tours in or near the Park,

and reasonably foreseeable future aircraft activity and airport

expansions that will contribute to the cumulative noise impact

on the Park. Indeed, the EA's statement on cumulative

impact is, in full: "There are no known factors that could

result in cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed St.

George Replacement Airport." Further, the Trust notes, the

FAA's Supplemental Noise Analysis disregards cumulative

impacts. The FAA responds that it adequately considered

the cumulative impact when it compared noise impacts associated with the replacement airport with the no-action alternative of continued use of the existing airport. It rejects the

Trust's position that it was required in an EA to compare the

project to an environmental baseline of natural quiet and to

consider the total impact of aircraft noise on the Park.

The issue dividing the parties is settled by regulations

promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality

("CEQ") to implement NEPA and by case law applying those

regulations.* "The CEQ regulations, which ... are entitled

to substantial deference, impose a duty on all federal agencies." Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360,

372 (1989) (citations omitted); see also Citizens Against

Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 200 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The CEQ regulations define each term within NEPA's requirement of an EIS for "every ... major Federal action[ ]

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."

__________

* Neither party challenges the regulatory authority of the CEQ,

and hence we have no occasion to question the binding effect of the

regulations on the FAA. See City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d

862, 866 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

42 U.S.C. s 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. s 1502.3. The term "significantly" is defined as those actions "with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance

exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment." 40 C.F.R. s 1508.27(b)(7).

"Cumulative impact," in turn, is defined as:

the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time.

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 4 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

40 C.F.R. s 1508.7. Although federal agencies have discretion to decide whether a proposed action "is significant

enough to warrant preparation of an EIS," the court owes no

deference to the FAA's interpretation of NEPA or the CEQ

regulations because NEPA is addressed to all federal agencies and Congress did not entrust administration of NEPA to

the FAA alone. Citizens Against Rails-to-Trails v. Surface

Transportation Board, 267 F.3d 1144, 1150 (D.C. Cir 2001);

see Amfac Resorts, LLC v. United States Dep't. of Interior,

282 F.3d 818, 835 (D.C. Cir. 2002); cf. Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254

F.3d 300, 307 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

The courts, in reviewing whether a federal agency has

acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding no significant

environmental impact, have given effect to the plain language

of the regulations. While the factual settings differ in some

respects from the instant case, the consistent position in the

case law is that, depending on the environmental concern at

issue, the agency's EA must give a realistic evaluation of the

total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it

in a vacuum. For example, in Coalition on Sensible Transportation v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("Dole"), this

court stated that the CEQ regulations on cumulative impact

"provide a distinct meaning to the concept" separate and

apart from the notion of improper segmentation of agency

action. Id. at 70. Noting that the regulatory definition of

cumulative impact specifies that the " 'incremental impact of

the action' [at issue]" must be considered " 'when added to

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,' " id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. s 1508.7), the court observed

that, consistent with the regulation and purpose of NEPA,

"[i]t makes sense to consider the 'incremental impact' of a

project for possible cumulative effects by incorporating the

effects of other projects into the background 'data base' of the

project at issue." Id. at 70-71. The point, the court stated,

was to provide in the EA "sufficient [information] to alert

interested members of the public to any arguable cumulative

impacts involving [ ] other projects." Id. at 71. Further, the

court concluded that insofar as Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427

U.S. 390 (1976), "may bear on an agency's duty to consider

impacts in a context that realistically includes other pending

projects, the [agency] fully complied by planning on the basis

of ... ultimate completion of the related projects." Id.

(citing Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 415 n.26). Similarly, the court in

Peterson, without regard to any particular NEPA regulation,

reversed a finding of no significant impact and a decision to

issue certain oil and gas leases in national forests without

preparing an EIS, remanding the case because the agency

had failed, as NEPA requires, to "fully assess[ ] the possible

environmental consequences" of activities "which have the

potential for disturbing the environment." 717 F.2d at 1415.

NRDC v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988), is to the same

effect. There, the agency had failed to consider the cumulative impact, as defined in the CEQ regulations, of simultaneous development in the region on "species, particularly

whales and salmon, that migrate through the different planning areas" when it considered only the effect on those

species "within the Planning Area" rather than "the interregional effects." Id. at 297-99. Other circuits take a similar

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 5 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

approach in applying the regulations. See, e.g., Fritiofson v.

Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985), rev'd on other

grounds, Sabine River Auth. v. Dep't of the Interior, 951 F.2d

669 (5th Cir. 1992). Although the FAA would distinguish

Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972), on which

the Trust relies, on the ground that it preceded the regulations, the court was addressing the requirements of NEPA,

and the FAA can point to nothing in the regulations that

would suggest the court erred in holding that NEPA requires

review of a proposed action in light of

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 6 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the cumulative harm that results from [the action's]

contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the

area.... [E]ven a slight increase in adverse conditions

that form an existing environmental milieu may sometimes threaten harm that is significant. One more factory ... may represent the straw that breaks the back of

the environmental camel.

Id. at 831.

The FAA, in finding that the St. George replacement

airport would have no significant impact on the environment

of the Park, concluded that "there is little discernable increased noise intrusion to the Park" from the proposed

replacement airport as compared to the existing airport, and

that "the increase in noise levels that would result from the

development of a replacement airport is negligible [because]

aircraft traffic will increase even if the replacement airport is

not constructed." The FAA's analysis appears principally in

a Supplemental Noise Analysis attached to the EA, and

proceeds on the basis of a comparison of the noise impacts

from predicted air traffic at the existing airport and predicted

air traffic at the larger replacement airport. At the existing

airport, the FAA predicted that flight activity would increase

due to normal traffic growth from 46,193 flights in 1998 to

59,640 flights in 2008 (more than 80 departures and 80

arrivals every day), and to 78,490 in 2018 (more than 100

departures and 100 arrivals each day). At the replacement

airport, traffic would increase to 63,290 flights in 2008 (more

than 85 departures and 85 arrivals every day), and to 79,220

flights in 2018 (more than 105 departures and 105 arrivals

each day). Comparing the predicted noise impact on the

Park from the existing and replacement airports, the FAA

found that Day-Night Noise Level ("DNL")1 would increase

"due to the implementation of the replacement airport over

__________

1 Day-Night Noise Level ("DNL") is a 24-hour, time-weighted

energy average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. It is a

measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day.

"Time-weighted" refers to the fact that noise occurring during

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 7 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the use of the existing airport" by no more than 3.5 dBA2 in

2008 and 3.2 dBA in 2018, which the FAA characterized as

"extremely low" increases. The FAA concluded that "there

will be little difference associated with the replacement airport, as compared with the existing airport, in the long-term

based on the DNL metric."

The FAA also examined in the Supplemental Noise Analysis the peak hour Equivalent Noise Level ("LEQ")3 based on

a threshold of 45 dBA, when aircraft would be clearly audible

and noticeable in the Park. The FAA assumed that typical

background noise levels in the Park would be 20 dBA during

quiet times and locations and in the low 30 dBA in less quiet

times and locations. Based on its own data and on research

sponsored by the National Park Service ("NPS"), the FAA

found that only one flight path from the replacement airport

would present noise greater than 45 dBA for more than one

minute an hour in 2008, which represented only a 0.7%

increase over the predicted traffic at the existing airport. In

2018, three of eleven flight paths from the replacement

airport would present noise greater than 45 dBA for more

than one minute per hour, a change of no more than 0.9%

from the predicted traffic at the existing airport. Using a

lower noise annoyance threshold of 35 dBA, the FAA predicted that no flight path would have noise above 35 dBA for

__________

certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these

times.

2 The standard unit of measurement of sound is the decibel

("dB"). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all

frequencies, with some frequencies judged to be louder for a given

signal than others, the most common method of frequency weighting is the A-weighted noise curve ("dBA"). The A-weighted decibel

scale discriminates between frequencies in a manner approximating

the sensitivity of the human ear. In the A-weighted decibel scale,

everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100

dBA (very loud).

3 Equivalent Noise Level ("LEQ") measures the energy average noise level resulting from the sound level corresponding to a

steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period.

more than 7 minutes per hour in 2008 and 7.7 minutes each

hour in 2018. Based on this data, the FAA found that while

2% to 7% of Park visitors would experience moderate to

extreme annoyance due to aircraft noise from the existing St.

George Airport, the number would only increase to 2% to 8%

with the replacement airport using the 45 dBA threshold.

Using a 35 dBA threshold, the FAA interpreted the data to

mean that between 3% and 15% of Park visitors would be

annoyed by aircraft noise from the existing airport, compared

to 4% to 15% of visitors who would be annoyed by aircraft

from the replacement airport, with a 3% increase (from 11%

to 14%) of Park visitors experiencing moderate to extreme

annoyance from the aircraft noise on the loudest flight path.

The FAA concluded that "there will be little difference in

noise between the existing and replacement airport."

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 8 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In a section of the EA entitled "Impacts to Natural Quiet of

the Park," the FAA did acknowledge the existence of "overflights" that pass over the Park. Noting that NPS had

completed ambient noise monitoring in Zion National Park,

the FAA stated that the results showed that "the background

or ambient noise levels vary, but are often in the low 20

dBA." Finding that the typical peak or maximum noise

levels from aircraft from either the existing or proposed St.

George airport sites ranged from 45 to 65 dBA when passing

directly overhead, the FAA concluded that, because "these

aircraft are at or near cruise altitude, or in the case of jets

[are] above 20,000 feet, the peak or maximum noise levels will

remain the same for either airport site." While recognizing

that these overflights constitute noise events that are higher

than background natural quiet during periods when ambient

noise levels are low, the FAA focused on the incremental

impact, stating that it was "important to illustrate that the

development of the St. George replacement airport has little

effect on the overall aircraft noise levels in the Park." The

FAA referred to the 250 overflights following established

flight paths near or over the Park4 that are not associated

__________

4 Instrument flight rules ("IFR") designate flights using established flight paths, as distinct from aircraft operating under visual

flight rules ("VFR").

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 9 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

with St. George Airport in concluding that "the replacement

airport has very little contribution to the cumulative number

of aircraft over flights over Zion National Park." The FAA

observed that St. George Airport contributed only 31 flights

using instrument flight rules over Zion, a number that was

expected to increase to 48 in 2008 at the existing airport and

54 at the replacement airport, and to 67 in 2018 at the

existing airport and 69 at the replacement airport. The FAA

then found that the replacement airport would add only six

additional flights using instrument flight rules per day in 2008

and only two additional such flights in 2018. In addition, the

FAA predicted that less than four aircraft per day would fly

over Zion using visual-flight-rules routes, a number the FAA

predicted would remain the same for either the existing or

the replacement site. The FAA concluded that the existing

St. George airport would contribute only 11% of all existing

flights using instrument flight rules over or near the Park,

and that the increased flights from the replacement airport

would represent only approximately 2% of the total aircraft

flights using instrument flight rules over or near the Park.

The FAA's noise analysis in the EA, including the Supplemental Noise Analysis, may, in fact, be a splendid incremental

analysis, but it fails to address what is crucial if the EA is to

serve its function. While, as the FAA stresses, the EA is not

intended to be a lengthy document, see 40 C.F.R.

s 1508.9(a)(1), it must at a minimum address the considerations relevant to determining whether an EIS is required.

NEPA regulations require that an agency consider cumulative impacts and the FAA's EA fails to address the total noise

impact that will result from the replacement airport. Indeed,

the FAA's own NEPA policy calls for consideration of cumulative impact, parroting the language of the NEPA regulations to include proposed projects and past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions. See Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order

1050.1D. Comments on the draft EA called the FAA's

attention to the need to consider mitigation measures in view

of the results of the study of noise-annoyance to persons in

the Park; the EA does not respond and provides no analysis

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 10 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of the 2% to 9% or the 4% to 15% level of annoyance shown in

the NPS study. Yet, as the FAA was aware, the NPS had

identified Zion National Park as among the nine national

parks of "highest priority" for attention to noise impact on

their natural quiet from overflights. See U.S. Department of

the Interior/National Park Service, Report on Effects of

Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System: Report to

Congress (July, 1995). Comments also expressed concern

about the total impacts of noise on the Park and on Park

visitors, yet the EA contains no analysis of the impact of 54

daily flights in 2008 and 69 in 2018 associated with St. George.

The Trust maintains that each flight may be responsible for

a noise level of 45 to 65 dBA and points to expert testimony

that an increase of 10 dBA correlates to a doubling of

loudness such that a commercial jet overflight at the Park

may be 4 to 23 times as loud as the natural soundscape.

Even in the absence of the regulatory definitions it would be

difficult to understand how an agency could determine that an

EIS is not required if it had not evaluated existing noise

impacts as well as those planned impacts that will exist by the

time the new facility is constructed and in operation. As the

Trust gleans from case law:

a meaningful cumulative impact analysis must identify (1)

the area in which the effects of the proposed project will

be felt; (2) the impacts that are expected in that area

from the proposed project; (3) other actions--past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable--that

have had or are expected to have impacts in the same

area; (4) the impacts or expected impacts from these

other actions; and (5) the overall impact that can be

expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.

Petitioner's Reply Br. at 3, citing Fritiofson, 772 F.2d at 1245

(citing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman's Peak

Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678, 683-84 (D.C. Cir.

1982)); see also Hodel, 865 F.2d at 297-99; City of Carmelby-the-Sea v. DOT, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160 (9th Cir. 1997).

The analysis in the EA, in other words, cannot treat the

identified environmental concern in a vacuum, as an increUSCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 11 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

mental approach attempts. Although the replacement airport

may contribute only a 2% increase to the amount of overflights near or over the Park, there is no way to determine

from the FAA's analysis in the EA whether, deferring to the

FAA's expert calculations, a 2% increase, in addition to other

noise impacts on the Park, will "significantly affect[ ]" the

quality of the human environment in the Park. At no point

does the FAA's EA aggregate the noise impacts on the Park.

The analysis in the EA does not address the accumulated, or

total, incremental impacts of various man-made noises, such

as the 250 daily aircraft flights near or over the Park that

originate at, or have as their destination, airports other than

that in St. George. Neither does the EA consider in any

manner the air tours near and over the Park originating from

the St. George airport. Nor does the EA address the impact,

much less the cumulative impact, of noise in the Park as a

result of other activities, such as the planned expansions of

other regional airports that have flights near or over the

Park. Without analyzing the total noise impact on the Park

as a result of the construction of the replacement airport, the

FAA is not in a position to determine whether the additional

noise that is projected to come from the expansion of the St.

George airport facility at a new location would cause a

significant environmental impact on the Park and, thus, to

require preparation of an EIS.

In defense of its incremental approach in the EA, the FAA

make three arguments. First, it relies on several phrases in

the NEPA regulations. The FAA points to the phrase "incremental impacts" in 40 C.F.R. s 1508.7 to contend that it is

obligated to consider only the incremental impact of any

project. The difficulty with this position is that it ignores the

rest of the sentence in s 1508.7 directing an agency to

consider that incremental impact "when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless

of what agency ... or person undertakes such other actions."

The FAA also relies on the phrase "related to" in the

definition of "significantly" in 40 C.F.R. s 1508.28(b)(7) to

contend that it need not consider either the overflights not

associated with St. George or the proposed expansion at Las

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 12 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Vegas Airport and the proposals for new airports at Mesquite

and Cedar City because they are "not related" to the St.

George's airport expansion. Again, the FAA ignores other

language in the regulation that "[s]ignificance exists if it is

reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on

the environment." 40 C.F.R. s 1508.28(b)(7).

Second, the FAA points to 40 C.F.R. s 1508.25(a) and

Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 409-10 & n.20, to contend that it need

consider only other projects that are "inextricably intertwined" and not those that are "substantially independent."

Both the regulation and the opinion address the proper scope

of an EIS, not an EA, but to the extent the former influences

the latter, nothing in Kleppe suggests that the FAA could

ignore the total noise impact in the area of identified environmental concern. See Dole, 826 F.2d at 71.

Third, the FAA, quoting CEQ guidance on preparation of

an EIS, contends that the no-action alternative is properly

viewed as a "benchmark against which decisionmakers may

compare the magnitude of environmental effects" of actions.

See 46 Fed. Reg. 18,026, 18,027 (March 23, 1981). Neither

the guidance nor the cases cited by the FAA relieve it of the

duty to consider cumulative impact in the EA. Although the

court stated in Allison v. DOT, 908 F.2d 1024 (D.C. Cir.

1990), that 40 C.F.R. s 1508.25(a) did not require the FAA to

consider unconnected single actions that are neither related

to nor dependent on the proposed new airport for Denver,

Colorado, the court was not addressing the requirements of

40 C.F.R. s 1508.7 on cumulative impact. Id. at 1030. In

contrast, here, the FAA responded to comments that baseline

data and cumulative impact was lacking in the draft EA by

stating, on the basis of its incremental analysis, that "The

current noise levels in Zion National Park will not be adversely affected by either the existing or future noise levels

associated with aircraft." Because there is no analysis of

cumulative noise impact on the Park against which the additional noise impact of the replacement airport can be evaluated, the FAA's error in ignoring cumulative impact of manmade noise is not harmless, see Allison, 908 F.2d at 1029, for

the FAA has impermissibly taken "a foreshortened view of

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 13 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the impacts which could result from the act" of constructing

the replacement airport. Peterson, 717 F.2d at 1413.

Accordingly, we grant the petition without reaching the

Trust's contention that an EIS is required because the project is "highly controversial," 40 C.F.R. s 1508.27(b)(4);

Fund for Animals v. Frizzell, 530 F.2d 982, 988 n.15 (D.C.

Cir. 1976). We remand the case because the record is

insufficient for the court to determine whether an EIS is

required. On remand, the FAA must evaluate the cumulative

impact of noise pollution on the Park as a result of construction of the proposed replacement airport in light of air traffic

near and over the Park, from whatever airport, air tours near

or in the Park, and the acoustical data collected by NPS in

the Park in 1995 and 1998 mentioned in comments on the

draft EA. See 42 U.S.C. s 4332(2)(C); Marsh, 490 U.S. at

371; Transportation, 753 F.2d at 129 (citing Committee for

Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, 463 F.2d 783, 787

(D.C. Cir. 1971)). Other data may also prove relevant. Although the FAA explained in responding to comments that it

does not use "natural ambient noise levels," because they

exclude human sounds and are therefore not a true reflection

of the existing noise environment, and rejected the "L90"

methodology5 used by NPS to calculate natural ambient noise

levels, because 90% of sounds in the Park would be considered noisier than the "natural" ambient level, the FAA in fact

did consider NPS data in its Supplemental Noise Analysis

and fails to demonstrate that this information is not relevant

to the cumulative impact analysis to be prepared for the EA.

See Allison, 908 F.2d at 1029; Transportation, 753 F.2d at

129.

__________

5 Under the "L90" methodology, the natural ambient level is

based on the quietest 10% of noise data statistically derived from

noise monitoring.

USCA Case #01-1154 Document #679835 Filed: 05/24/2002 Page 14 of 14