FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION
COUNCIL; SKAGWAY MARINE ACCESS
COMMISSION; LYNN CANAL
CONSERVATION, INC.; ALASKA
PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP;
SIERRA CLUB; NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; RAY LAHOOD, in
his official capacity as Secretary No. 09-35551
of Transportation; UNITED STATES
FOREST SERVICE; DAVID C. MILLER, D.C. No.
1:06-cv-00009-JWS
in his official capacity as Division OPINION
Administrator for the Federal
Highway Administration; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; MARK REY, in his
official capacity as Under
Secretary of Agriculture; DENNIS
R. BSCHOR, in his official capacity
as Alaska Regional Forester,
Defendants,
and
STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendant-intervenor-Appellant.
5891
5892 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
July 26, 2010—Anchorage, Alaska
Filed May 4, 2011
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and
Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Schroeder;
Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain
5894 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
COUNSEL
Katherine S. Glover, Juneau, Alaska, for plaintiffs-appellees
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, et al.
Sean Lynch, Juneau, Alaska, for defendant-intervenor-
appellant State of Alaska.
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5895
OPINION
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
The issue in this environmental case is whether the district
court properly ordered the State of Alaska to consider improv-
ing existing ferry service between Juneau and the communi-
ties of Haines and Skagway before proceeding with expensive
construction of a new ferry terminal and highway through a
national forest. We hold the district court was correct under
settled environmental law.
Intervenor State of Alaska appeals the district court’s judg-
ment in favor of Southeast Alaska Conservation Council and
five other groups (collectively, “SEACC”) in their suit against
the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), the Depart-
ment of Transportation, the Forest Service, the Department of
Agriculture, and individual federal officials. Alaska argues
the district court erred in holding that the Environmental
Impact Statement (“EIS”) issued by the FHWA for the Juneau
Access Improvements Project violated the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to consider as a proj-
ect alternative any plan that would improve existing ferry
services in Lynn Canal, Alaska, without the construction of
new roads, ferries, or terminals. The district court vacated the
FHWA’s Record of Decision (“ROD”), which approved Alas-
ka’s preferred alternative for the project, and enjoined all con-
struction and activities that depended on the issuance of a
valid EIS, until one was prepared. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the early 1990s, the Alaska Department of Transporta-
tion and Public Facilities (“ADOT”) initiated the Juneau
Access Improvements Project (“Project”) to improve surface
access between Juneau and the communities of Haines and
5896 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
Skagway in the Lynn Canal corridor of Southeast Alaska.
Access to Juneau is possible by air and water.
The available public surface transportation to and from
Juneau is the Alaska Marine Highway System (“AMHS”), a
state-owned ferry system operated by ADOT that provides
transportation to many of Alaska’s southeast coastal commu-
nities. AMHS service from Juneau connects to the continental
highway system in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and Bel-
lingham, Washington, to the south, and in Haines and Skag-
way to the north. The most commonly used access route to the
continental highway system is the northbound ferry.
Because the Project would involve federal lands, federal
funds, and environmental impacts, ADOT needed to obtain
approvals and permits from several federal agencies, includ-
ing the FHWA. In June 1997, ADOT and the FHWA issued
a draft EIS for the Project, as required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332. See AR 2693-4409. Over the next two years, ADOT
analyzed comments submitted regarding the draft EIS and
conducted further studies. In January 2000, Governor Tony
Knowles announced that ADOT’s preferred alternative for the
Project was a plan in the draft EIS calling for the construction
of a highway along the eastern side of Lynn Canal to a new
ferry terminal to be built near the Katzehin River Delta, but
stated that the alternative would not be actively pursued dur-
ing his administration because of its high cost. He directed
ADOT to discontinue most work on the EIS.
In 2002, Governor Frank Murkowski ordered the comple-
tion of the EIS. Because more than three years had passed
since the release of the draft EIS, ADOT, in December 2002,
reevaluated the adequacy of the earlier study. See 23 C.F.R.
§ 771.129(a). ADOT determined, and the FHWA concurred,
that there were sufficient changes in project alternatives and
potential environmental impacts to warrant preparation of a
supplemental draft EIS. ADOT and the FHWA released the
supplemental draft in January 2005, and allowed public com-
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5897
ment until March 21, 2005. Among those who submitted
comments was Plaintiff-Appellee SEACC.
The supplemental draft EIS analyzed ten alternatives for
the Project. All but the first involved substantial construction
expenditures. The alternatives included: No Action Alterna-
tive — Continuation of existing mainline AMHS service and
fast ferry service in Lynn Canal, with the previously sched-
uled addition of a ferry shuttle service between Haines and
Skagway; Alternatives 2, 2A, 2B, and 2C — Various plans
that would include construction of a highway along the east-
ern coast of Lynn Canal (the “East Lynn Canal Highway”)
that either stretched all the way to Skagway or stopped at
some point short of Skagway where a new ferry terminal
would be constructed to provide shuttle service to and from
Skagway and Haines; Alternative 3 — Building two new
ferry terminals slightly north of Juneau—one on the east and
one on the west side of Lynn Canal—to provide ferry service
between Juneau and a 39-mile highway to Haines that would
be constructed on the western coast of the canal (the “West
Lynn Canal Highway”), with ferry service also offered
between Haines and Skagway; and Alternatives 4A, 4B, 4C,
and 4D — Four marine alternatives that would consist of con-
structing new ferries to operate in addition to continued main-
line service in Lynn Canal. The supplemental draft EIS
identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the
Project. Under Alternative 2, the East Lynn Canal Highway
would extend from Juneau to Skagway, and a new ferry ter-
minal would be constructed on the eastern shore of Lynn
Canal near the Katzehin River Delta to provide shuttle service
to Haines.
In its comment letter to the FHWA, SEACC asserted that
the supplemental draft EIS violated NEPA. Among other con-
tentions, SEACC argued that the analysis of Project alterna-
tives in the supplemental draft EIS was inadequate because it
failed to consider practicable ways of improving ferry service
without expenditure of significant capital funds. Citing to ref-
5898 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
erendum votes and survey results, SEACC asserted that a
majority of the community in the Lynn Canal corridor pre-
ferred improving existing AMHS ferry services over building
a network of new roads. Despite this public support, however,
the supplemental draft EIS failed to analyze as a Project alter-
native any plan that would make changes to improve existing
ferry services without expending significant capital funds for
new roads, terminals, or ferries. SEACC attached as an
exhibit to its comment letter a May 2002 study by a consult-
ing firm that suggested changes in AHMS’s management
structure, operations, and financial planning that would
reduce costs to the State while improving the existing ferry
service. SEACC also suggested that scheduling changes,
including revisions to current ferry routes, could be made to
the existing services that would provide greater flexibility and
improved opportunity for travel at a reduced user cost.
In August 2005, ADOT issued a press release announcing
that it had changed its preferred alternative for the Project
from Alternative 2 to Alternative 2B. Alternative 2B would
terminate the new East Lynn Canal Highway at a point north
of the Katzehin River Delta, where a new terminal would be
built to provide shuttle ferry service to Skagway and Haines.
That service, in turn, would be supplemented by the new shut-
tle between Skagway and Haines contemplated in the No
Action Alternative. The change in preference from Alterna-
tive 2 to Alternative 2B was necessitated by the fact that a
portion of the East Lynn Canal Highway, as envisioned by
Alternative 2, would run through lands subject to § 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. Section
4(f) prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from authoriz-
ing the use of federal funds to finance the construction of
highways through a public park, recreation area, wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or historic site, unless there is “no prudent
and feasible alternative to using that land.” 49 U.S.C.
§ 303(c). Alternative 2B did not run through lands subject to
§ 4(f).
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5899
ADOT and the FHWA issued the final EIS in January
2006. The final EIS dropped three Project alternatives consid-
ered in the supplemental draft EIS (Alternatives 2, 2A, and
2C) from consideration, because the FHWA had determined
that they would involve lands protected under § 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act. It retained the remaining
seven Project alternatives included in the supplemental draft
EIS (Alternatives 1, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D), and provided
an analysis of each. The final EIS identified Alternative 2B,
involving construction of a new highway and ferry terminal,
as the preferred alternative. In analyzing the environmental
consequences of each of the remaining alternatives, the final
EIS identified several adverse environmental impacts that
might result from the selection and completion of the pre-
ferred alternative. These included: the loss of 70 acres of wet-
lands and 428 acres of terrestrial habitat, including 68 acres
of old-growth forest in reserves established by the United
States Forest Service (“USFS”), the possibility of up to a 26%
reduction in the brown bear habitat capability of the areas
impacted by the construction of the East Lynn Canal High-
way, and the possible relocation of bald eagle nests, since the
East Lynn Canal Highway would be located within half a mile
of 92 bald eagle nests, and within 330 feet of 49 of those
nests. Responses to comments received during the comment
period for the supplemental draft EIS were included in an
appendix to the final EIS. Addressing SEACC’s concern that
the EIS’s analysis of ferry alternatives did not consider practi-
cable ways of improving ferry services without expending
significant public funds, ADOT and the FHWA said only that
it could not increase service in the Lynn Canal without reduc-
ing service elsewhere:
[T]he No Action Alternative is a projection of future
Lynn Canal service based on existing AMHS assets
and the most recent Southeast Alaska Transportation
Plan. AMHS has experimented with different levels
and types of service in Lynn Canal and would likely
continue to do so in the future. While there are many
5900 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
opinions on ways to improve ferry service in Lynn
Canal, there is no way AMHS can meet the purpose
and need for the project solely by making changes to
the current operational model. Absent construction
of new vessels, an increase in capacity would require
reduction in service outside of Lynn Canal.
ADOT began distributing the final EIS to the public and
made the document available electronically on its website in
late January 2006. The Environmental Protection Agency
published notice of the availability of the final EIS in the Fed-
eral Register on February 10, 2006. See Notice of Availability
of Environmental Impacts Statements, 71 Fed. Reg. 7040
(Feb. 10, 2006). ADOT encouraged interested parties to sub-
mit their comments on the final EIS by March 13, 2006.
SEACC, on March 13, 2006, submitted a comment letter
addressing the organization’s concerns with the final EIS.
SEACC faulted the final EIS as unreasonable for not consid-
ering an alternative to the Project that would increase capacity
and flexibility without requiring substantial initial capital
expenditures. SEACC said:
Rather than building new ferries, roads, or terminals,
ADOT could make more efficient use of the assets
it currently owns. Through more efficient manage-
ment and scheduling, capacity can be increased dra-
matically, costs to the state and user can be lowered,
and flexibility and reliability can be increased. All of
this can be accomplished without the enormous ini-
tial expense of money, tremendous dangers, and eco-
logical and cultural damage that would accompany
ADOT’s Preferred Alternative.
SEACC argued that the failure to consider such an alternative
in the final EIS violated NEPA.
To remedy this deficiency, SEACC proposed a “Better
Ferry Service Alternative” that included specific changes to
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5901
improve the current ferry system in Lynn Canal, without
resorting to the construction of new ferries or terminals. The
suggested changes included modifications to the current ferry
schedule, reassigning mainline vessels, increasing the staff at
the ferry terminals, increasing the reservation staff, upgrading
the reservation website, producing and maintaining a reliable
schedule two years in advance, increasing marketing, reduc-
ing fares, and improvements to the management structure.
SEACC explained that other configurations of this plan were
possible, including the reassignment of vessels from other
communities during periods of peak demand in Lynn Canal.
SEACC acknowledged that such changes would lower service
to the communities from which the vessels were reassigned,
but stated such reassignments would be temporary and pre-
dictable, meaning schedules could be developed far in
advance to mitigate inconvenience.
On April 3, 2006, the FHWA issued an ROD approving
Alternative 2B as the proposed action for the Project. In an
appendix to the ROD, the FHWA responded to the substan-
tive comments it had received on the final EIS. Addressing
SEACC’s concern that the EIS should have included an anal-
ysis of a Project alternative that improved ferry services using
existing assets, the FHWA said:
The Final EIS explains that a TSM alternative would
require taking vessels from other parts of the system.
Reducing service in other parts of the system, or
using vessels made available by vessel replacement
in other system parts, would merely shift costs,
avoiding capital costs in Lynn Canal while increas-
ing operation cost.
On May 3, 2006, ADOT sent a letter to the FHWA request-
ing a right of way for the Project from the USFS. The FHWA
forwarded the request to the USFS, and on May 22, 2006, the
USFS consented to the FHWA’s appropriation of the portion
of the right of way that is on lands within the Tongass
5902 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
National Forest, for the purpose of constructing the East Lynn
Canal Highway.
In August 2006, SEACC commenced this action under the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) seeking review of the
Project on the grounds that it violated NEPA, the National
Forest Management Act, the Bald Eagle Protection Act, and
the Endangered Species Act. SEACC’s complaint sought both
declaratory and injunctive relief. It named federal agencies
and officials as defendants, but the State of Alaska sought and
received permission to intervene as a defendant in the action.
SEACC moved for summary judgment. SEACC argued
that the FHWA violated NEPA when it refused to consider in
the EIS a reasonable alternative that called for improved ferry
services using existing resources, and that the FHWA’s justi-
fications for not considering this alternative were arbitrary.
The district court granted SEACC’s motion, holding that
NEPA had not yet been complied with. The court ruled that
the EIS failed to satisfy NEPA’s requirements “to consider or
properly reject proposed alternatives.” N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v.
Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 979 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the
court vacated the ROD, remanded the USFS’s decision grant-
ing a right of way to the FHWA, and enjoined all construction
on the Project and any activities dependent on the issuance of
a valid EIS. The court entered its final judgment in this matter
on April 6, 2009, and the State timely appealed on June 4,
2009. See FRAP 4(a)(1)(B). The federal defendants’ appeal
was voluntarily dismissed September 8, 2009. They have filed
no briefs in this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmen-
tal impact statement (“EIS”) for all “major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Challenges to an agency’s compli-
ance with NEPA are reviewed under standards set forth in the
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5903
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). N. Idaho Cmty.
Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147, 1152
(9th Cir. 2008); Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of Inte-
rior, 376 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2004). Under the APA, the
agency’s decision may be set aside only if it is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accor-
dance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). In making the deter-
mination concerning whether an agency decision was
“ ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ the reviewing court ‘must consider
whether the decision was based on a consideration of the rele-
vant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judg-
ment.’ ” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490
U.S. 360, 378 (1989) (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)).
[1] Under NEPA’s applicable regulations, a federal agen-
cy’s EIS must “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate
all reasonable alternatives [to a proposed action], and for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study,
briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.”
40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a). We have repeatedly recognized that
if the agency fails to consider a viable or reasonable alterna-
tive, the EIS is inadequate. See e.g. Friends of Yosemite Val-
ley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008); ‘Ilio
‘ulaokalani Coalition v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th
Cir. 2006).
[2] In N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr., a group of environmental
plaintiffs challenged an EIS issued by the Bureau of Land
Management (“BLM”) to open land in northern Alaska to oil
and gas leasing under NEPA, arguing, inter alia, that the EIS
failed to consider reasonable alternatives. 457 F.3d at 973. As
in the present case, an environmental group proposed an alter-
native in a comment to the draft EIS. Id. at 978. The so-called
Audubon Alternative recommended that the BLM make a
lower percentage of the land available for leasing. Id. In hold-
ing in that case that the EIS “adequately examined a range of
viable alternatives,” we noted that the EIS explained that the
5904 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
proposed alternative was inconsistent with the project and
statutory mandates, and that the BLM specifically incorpo-
rated several of the Audubon Alternative’s recommendations
into the Preferred Alternative. Id. at 978-79. There was no
such explanation or modification in this case.
Accordingly, in this case, the district court held the Agency
did not consider a reasonable alternative as it was required to
do. See Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass’n v.
Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995). In granting sum-
mary judgment to the plaintiffs, the district court held that
improving ferry services using existing resources was a rea-
sonable alternative for improving transportation within Lynn
Canal, and that the FHWA therefore violated NEPA when it
failed to consider this alternative in the final EIS. See also
Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768 F.2d 1051,
1057 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The existence of a viable but unexam-
ined alternative renders an environmental impact statement
inadequate”). As we said in Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel,
852 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1988), “[i]nformed and meaningful
consideration of alternatives — including the no action alter-
native — is thus an integral part of the statutory scheme.” Id.
at 1228.
The district court agreed with SEACC that the FHWA’s
justifications for not considering SEACC’s proposed alterna-
tive — that it would potentially reduce services elsewhere and
increase costs — were arbitrary, because all of the alternatives
that were considered in the EIS, particularly Alternative 2B,
posed the same risks. Any of the “build” alternatives consid-
ered in detail in the EIS, including Alaska’s preferred alterna-
tive to build a new road and terminal, would increase costs for
the state and could have the ripple effect of reducing service
elsewhere. The EIS estimated that each of the build alterna-
tives would have initial capital costs of between $103 million
and $268 million. Although Alaska anticipated that the lion’s
share of these costs would be reimbursed by the federal gov-
ernment, the EIS still estimated that the net cost to the state
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5905
over the next thirty-five years would range between $70 mil-
lion and $98 million for the build alternatives. This cost was
greater than the estimated $61 million the state would have to
pay over the same thirty-five year period under the only non-
construction alternative considered in the EIS — the No
Action Alternative.
Additionally, the EIS’s estimates of the amount of federal
funding ADOT would receive for the build alternatives may
have been overly optimistic. The EIS estimated that the net
state cost for Alaska’s preferred alternative would be $88 mil-
lion, but the ROD increased that estimate by $34 million after
the FHWA determined that less federal funding would be
available than ADOT had anticipated when it helped prepare
the EIS. As the supplemental draft EIS cautioned, reductions
in the anticipated amount of federal funding for the build
alternatives will force ADOT to delay or eliminate other
transportation projects it has planned. Thus, it is likely that
Alaska’s preferred alternative, if pursued, would have the rip-
ple effect of reducing services elsewhere as money is shifted
from other transportation projects to cover the costs of build-
ing the new road and terminal in the Lynn Canal corridor.
The district court also rejected the defendants’ argument
that they had considered SEACC’s proposal in the final EIS’s
No Action Alternative. The district court pointed out that both
the EIS and the ROD expressly acknowledged that the No
Action Alternative would provide reduced, not improved,
ferry services.
[3] The final EIS’s explanation of the FHWA’s consider-
ation of a No Action Alternative is cursory. Three brief para-
graphs first describe the “No Action Alternative” as an
updated 1997 plan for ferry usage, then assert that using more
ferries would reduce service elsewhere (without explaining
the comparative needs for such services) and finally note that
under the No Action Alternative AMHS could add ferries in
5906 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
the future but would not build anything. The entire explana-
tion, after the description of current service, is as follows:
The No Action Alternative is an updated version
of the 1997 Draft EIS Alternative 1, titled No
Build/Transportation System Management. Alterna-
tive 1 originally used the term No Build rather than
No Action to help clarify that the AMHS has and
would continue to implement new actions in the
Lynn Canal corridor. An example of an expected
AMHS addition to Lynn Canal is the use of the M/V
Aurora as a shuttle ferry between Haines and Skag-
way.
Transportation System Management (TSM) refers
to activities that maximize the efficiency of an exist-
ing system with little or no new construction. It is
generally applicable to transportation systems in
urban areas and typically involves options such as
fringe parking, ride sharing, designating high-
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and traffic signal
timing optimization. Reassigning vessels to Lynn
Canal could be reviewed as a form of TSM, but
unlike more typical TSM measures, this would be at
the expense of service elsewhere. For this reason,
there is no TSM alternative in the Supplemental
Draft EIS range of alternatives and the term TSM is
not included in the Alternative 1 title.
New actions that AMHS may implement in the
Lynn Canal corridor include deploying different ves-
sels (including new ones added to the system as a
whole) and changing schedules, but do not include
implementing a build alternative specific to the
Juneau Access Improvements Project.
(emphasis added). This explanation does not represent the
“substantial treatment” required by NEPA’s implementing
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5907
regulations to any non-construction alternatives. See 40
C.F.R. § 1502.14(b) (discussion in reasonable alternatives
section of EIS shall “[d]evote substantial treatment to each
alternative considered in detail including the proposed action
so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”).
[4] Alaska now asserts that “optimization” measures, such
as “maximizing the amount of time the systems are in opera-
tion each day, . . . scheduling fixed daily service . . . and, cal-
culating vessel use and speeds based on operating history and
environmental conditions in Southeast Alaska,” were consid-
ered during preparation of the EIS. The EIS, however, itself
does not discuss what these measures were. Rather, the
FHWA acknowledged in a response to comments on the EIS
that “[t]he only improvement (or additional service beyond
current service) included in the No Action Alternative is the
addition of shuttle service between Haines and Skagway.”
The EIS thus falls below NEPA’s standards because it fails to
provide policymakers and the public with sufficient informa-
tion to “make an informed comparison of the alternatives.”
Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1439 (9th Cir.
1988), amended by 867 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1989). While the
dissent asserts that the SEACC proposal is “remote and spec-
ulative,” dissent at 5911, given the dearth of reasoned expla-
nation in the EIS for its rejection, the record does not permit
us to so conclude as a matter of law.
[5] At oral argument, counsel for Alaska suggested that
Chapter 1 of the EIS supplied the necessary analysis support-
ing the FHWA’s decision not to give detailed consideration to
SEACC’s proposal by demonstrating that all of the AMHS
ferries are currently running at full capacity. Chapter 1 of the
EIS, however, merely gives a historical overview of the
development of the ferry system in Lynn Canal, generally
describing what vessels have operated in Lynn Canal in the
past and what vessels currently operate there now. It contains
no analysis of ferry service to other areas, or of how the
assignment of additional vessels to Lynn Canal would affect
5908 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
service elsewhere. Therefore, it does not provide any reasoned
support for the FHWA’s position that reassigning vessels was
not a reasonable alternative that required detailed consider-
ation in the EIS.
[6] The district court therefore properly concluded that it
was arbitrary for the FHWA to refuse to consider reassigning
vessels as a project alternative on the basis that it would
increase costs and reduce services elsewhere when the chosen
project alternative could have been rejected for the same rea-
son. By failing to examine a viable and reasonable alternative
to the proposed project, and by not providing an adequate jus-
tification for its omission, the EIS issued by the FHWA vio-
lated NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a); Friends of Yosemite
Valley, 520 F.3d at 1038; ‘Ilio ‘ulaokalani, 464 F.3d at 1095.
AFFIRMED.
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The majority holds that the final environmental impact
statement prepared by the State of Alaska and the Federal
Highway Administration violates the National Environmental
Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., by failing to consider
certain alternatives to the State’s proposed plan to improve
surface transportation to Juneau, Alaska. I respectfully dis-
sent.
I
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), a
federal agency proposing a major action “significantly affect-
ing the quality of the human environment” must prepare an
environmental impact statement (“EIS”) that includes a “de-
tailed” account of the “alternatives to the proposed action.” 42
U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). The EIS must “[r]igorously explore
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5909
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study,
briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.”
40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).
“NEPA itself does not mandate particular results.” Robert-
son v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350
(1989). Rather, it “simply prescribes the necessary process”
by which agencies must take a “hard look” at the environmen-
tal consequences of their proposed actions. Id. (internal quota-
tion marks omitted). Accordingly, the question in this case is
not whether the final EIS prefers the wrong alternative, but
rather whether it considers a reasonable range of alternatives.
As we explained in Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174
(9th Cir. 1990):
Section 4332 does not require the consideration of
alternatives whose effect cannot be reasonably ascer-
tained, and whose implementation is deemed remote
and speculative. Nor must an agency consider alter-
natives which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsis-
tent with the basic policy objectives for the
management of the area. Finally, NEPA does not
require a separate analysis of alternatives which are
not significantly distinguishable from alternatives
actually considered, or which have substantially sim-
ilar consequences. Thus, an agency’s consideration
of alternatives is sufficient if it considers an appro-
priate range of alternatives, even if it does not con-
sider every available alternative.
Id. at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
II
The majority holds that the final EIS fails to consider cer-
tain alternatives for improving surface transportation to
Juneau. According to the majority, the final EIS does not con-
5910 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
sider the possibility of improving ferry service by maximizing
the use of existing infrastructure. Maj. Op. at 5897-98. In my
view, however, the final EIS includes just such an alternative:
the No Action Alternative.
As the final EIS explains, the No Action Alternative is
based on the absence of capital improvements to ferry service
in Lynn Canal. Thus, unlike the other alternatives considered
in the final EIS, the No Action Alternative includes no new
highways, terminals, or ferries. It is not the case, however,
that the Alternative contemplates no new improvements at all.
The final EIS makes clear that the No Action Alternative pre-
sumes the continued implementation of non-capital improve-
ments, including measures designed to make the most of
existing infrastructure. Indeed, the final EIS expressly consid-
ers “deploying different vessels,” “changing schedules,” and
“experiment[ing] with different levels and types of service in
Lynn Canal” as part of the No Action Alternative.
The majority asserts that the final EIS “expressly acknowl-
edged that the No Action Alternative would provide reduced,
not improved, ferry services.” Maj. Op. at 5905-06. The sug-
gestion is that the Alternative does not seriously contemplate
improvements in ferry service if it anticipates that such a
reduction would occur. The acknowledgment to which the
majority refers, however, must be read in context. The rele-
vant portion of the final EIS states: “The No Action Alterna-
tive is a reduction below the current level of service due to
reduced mainliner frequency in Lynn Canal. Mainliner fre-
quency would be reduced because of projected reduction in
the number of mainliners operating in the [Alaska Marine
Highway System or AMHS].” (emphases added). In short, the
reduction in service would be caused by a lack of capital
improvements, i.e., of new ferries servicing the canal. That
the No Action Alternative presumes such a reduction says
nothing about whether the Alternative contemplates the possi-
bility of non-capital improvements. Just because there would
be a reduction in service from the lack of new ferries does not
SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA 5911
mean that measures to maximize the efficiency of the existing
infrastructure have been ignored.
The majority also faults the final EIS for not specifically
considering the suggestion by the Southeast Alaska Conserva-
tion Council (“SEACC”) to improve ferry transportation by
reassigning two mainline vessels to service in Lynn Canal.
NEPA, however, “does not require the consideration of alter-
natives . . . whose implementation is deemed remote and
speculative.” Headwaters, 914 F.2d at 1180. Here, implemen-
tation of SEACC’s suggestion is both. As explained in the
final EIS, the No Action Alternative “is based on the most
likely AMHS operations in the absence of any capital
improvements specific to Lynn Canal,” as reflected in the
2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (“SATP”) devel-
oped by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (emphasis added). SEACC’s proposal to reassign
two mainline vessels to round-trip service in the canal is
inconsistent with the SATP. Given that the SATP represents
“a comprehensive, intermodal, long-range transportation
plan” for the region, Alaska Stat. § 44.42.050(a), any possibil-
ity of implementing SEACC’s proposal is remote and specu-
lative.
Moreover, NEPA does not require the consideration of “al-
ternatives which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent
with the basic policy objectives for the management of the
area.” Headwaters, 914 F.2d at 1180. As the final EIS notes,
reassigning two mainline vessels to round-trip service in the
Lynn Canal would come “at the expense of service else-
where.” Although it is true, as the majority points out, that the
final EIS considers other alternatives that “would increase
costs for the state and could have the ripple effect of reducing
service elsewhere,” Maj. Op. at 5904, the costs associated
with SEACC’s proposal are qualitatively different. By divert-
ing vessels from one route to another in contravention of the
SATP, the State would be directly depriving another area of
committed resources. It was not arbitrary or capricious for the
5912 SEACC v. STATE OF ALASKA
State to conclude that what amounts to robbing Peter to pay
Paul would be “infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the
basic policy objectives of the area.”
For these reasons, I believe the State reasonably concluded
that SEACC’s proposal to reassign mainline vessels did not
require separate analysis. Because the final EIS considers a
reasonable range of alternatives, it meets the requirements of
NEPA. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the dis-
trict court.