Opinion ID: 3051488
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Range of Action Alternatives

Text: [10] The district court correctly found that the SEIS lacked a reasonable range of action alternatives, and was thus unreasonably narrow, in violation of NEPA. The three action alternatives each included the revised version of VERP as the primary mechanism for dealing with user capacity, with a five year interim period while VERP is tested. Because the district court based its decision on the fact that each alternative relied on the revised VERP and because it is incorrect in its assessment of VERP, NPS argues that the court had no legitimate basis for finding that the SEIS lacked a reasonable range of action alternatives. The action alternatives are the “heart” of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. “The existence of a viable but unexamined alternaFRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE 3087 tive renders an environmental impact statement inadequate. An agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed action, and sufficient to permit a reasoned choice.” Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Applying the “rule of reason” standard, we find that the range of action alternatives is unreasonably narrow because the alternatives are virtually indistinguishable from each other. [11] First, each of the three action alternatives is primarily based on the VERP program which does not adequately address user capacity. Moreover, despite the supposed alternatives it proposed, NPS itself was aware that compliance with NEPA would require consideration of different means for addressing user capacity other than just VERP. For example, an NPS attorney advised that “VERP not be the only User Capacity framework analyzed in the Plan.” As indicated in meeting notes, NPS recognized that “VERP is just a set of words . . . and [the public is] expecting us to look at other [user capacity] systems and they care about transparency.” Perhaps most critically, NPS realized the “need for a reasonable range of user capacity alternatives because the original EIS did not look at alternatives for implementing carrying capacity.” (emphasis added). [12] Second, for the first five years, the interim limits proposed by the three alternatives are essentially identical. As indicated in NPS’s meeting notes, “[a]ll alternatives start with levels of use consistent with current use levels.” see also Friends of Yosemite, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1099 (“These ‘limits,’ however, are simply the current physical capacity of the facilities in Yosemite Valley . . . .”). Although alternatives 3 and 4 also include maximum use levels and annual visitation limits, the action alternatives were not varied enough to allow for a real, informed choice. See Yosemite I, 348 F.3d at 800 n.2. 3088 FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE