Opinion ID: 3051488
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wilderness Trailhead Quota System &

Text: Superintendent’s Compendium [1] The district court properly concluded that neither the Wilderness Trailhead Quota System nor the Superintendent’s 2 While we have not required that NPS set a numerical cap on visitors but rather that it “deal with or discuss the maximum number of people that can be received at” the Merced, Yosemite I, 348 F.3d at 796, as counsel for Friends alluded to at oral argument, numerical limits on visitor use is commonly used by agencies in order to protect our natural environment. See, e.g., U.S. Air Tour Ass’n v. FAA, 298 F.3d 997, 1011-12 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (allowing numerical cap on the number of commercial air tours over the Grand Canyon and noting that “[l]imiting the number of visitors at a given time in a national park is a standard measure used to protect park resources”); Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding the U.S. Forest Service’s EIS where nine out of ten alternatives placed limits on visitor use at or below current levels). 3078 FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE Compendium3 are “persuasive as to whether the 2005 Revised Plan adequately addresses user capacities.” Friends of Yosemite, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1096. Although they are steps in the right direction, both these methods for addressing user capacity “predate the 2000 [CMP] and were relied upon by [NPS] in support of that plan” to no avail. Id.