Barnes

Opinion by Judge B. FLETCHER; Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

OPINION

Petitioners Michelle Barnes, Patrick Conry, and Blaine Ackley (collectively, “petitioners”) challenge an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) concerning the proposed construction by the Port of Portland (“the Port”) of a new runway at Hillsboro Airport (“HIO”). The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”), thus relieving the agency of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). Petitioners argue that the decision not to prepare an EIS was unreasonable for several reasons, chief among them the FAA’s failure to consider the environmental impacts of any increased demand for HIO resulting from the addition of a runway. Petitioners also argue that the FAA did not afford them a public hearing within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 47106 .

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110 . We grant the petition and remand.

BACKGROUND

I. The Hillsboro Airport

HIO is located in the city of Hillsboro in Washington County, Oregon, 12 miles west *1127 of downtown Portland. The Port of Portland assumed ownership of HIO in 1966. In 2008, HIO become Oregon’s busiest airport, surpassing…

dissenting:

It is conventional wisdom among aviators that “when the weight of the paper equals the weight of the airplane, only then you can go flying.” The majority confirms the truth of this quotation: here a federal agency is trying to reduce airport delays and the concomitant negative environmental effects by commencing a project in anticipation of future growth, and the majority sides with delay and air pollution by imposing pointless paperwork on the agency before the necessary project can go forward. Because the majority’s approach is contrary to our case law and the facts, I dissent.

I

A new highway interchange, a new cargo port, and the expansion of the only bridge leading to an offshore island may all attract or facilitate development and thus 'have “growth inducing effects” under NEPA, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8 (b). See City of Davis v. Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 674-76 (9th Cir.1975); Sierra Club v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 868, 878-79 (1st Cir.1985); Mullin v. Skinner, 756 F.Supp. 904, 917-21 (E.D.N.C.1990). Does expanding an existing airport have such an effect? Our case law, based on the informed input of the airport experts, says it does not. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.…

Sean T. Malone and Andrew J. Orahoske, for the petitioners.

Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General; Hans Bjornson and Patricia A. Deem, the Federal Aviation Administration; David C. Shilton and Michael T. Gray, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, for the respondents.

Beth S. Ginsberg, Rita V. Latsinova, and Jason T. Morgan, Stoel Rives LLP, for the intervenor.

Before: BETTY B. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge B. FLETCHER; Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:

Petitioners Michelle Barnes, Patrick Conry, and Blaine Ackley (collectively, "petitioners") challenge an order of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") concerning the proposed construction by the Port of Portland ("the Port") of a new runway at Hillsboro Airport ("HIO"). The FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"), thus relieving the agency of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). Petitioners argue that the decision not to prepare an EIS was unreasonable for several reasons, chief among them the FAA's failure to consider the environmental impacts of any increased demand…