National Parks & Conservation Association v. U.S. Department of Transportation

Kahului, Hawaii’s second largest airport, could accommodate the arrival of large airplanes, but planes fully loaded with fuel, passengers, and cargo could not take off from the airport, because the runway was too short. The Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (defendant) developed a plan (the project) to strengthen and extend the runway by 2,600 feet. The project prompted concerns that extending the runway would increase air traffic and risk introducing more alien species of non-native animals, plants, and insects by island visitors. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the FAA and HDOT drafted an environmental-impact statement (EIS). The EIS contained public and expert input, including a biological assessment (BA) from a technical panel of state and federal experts that recommended mitigation measures. Additionally, a United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion included in the final EIS concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize any threatened or endangered species. The final EIS concluded that the project alone would have an insignificant impact on the rate of alien species’ introduction but a significant cumulative impact because alien species were an existing statewide problem. The FAA subsequently approved the project, and National Parks & Conservation Association and other groups (the environmental groups) (plaintiffs) challenged the agency’s decision, arguing that the FAA had not looked hard enough at the risks additional international flights posed of introducing dangerous alien species into the local environment.