FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONAL PARKS & CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant-
Cross-Appellee,
v.
Nos. 99-36065
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary, United
99-36094
States Department of the Interior;
ROBERT STANTON, Director,
D.C. No. CV-97-00456-JKS
National Park Service,
Defendants-Appellees,
OPINION
and
HOLLAND AMERICA LINE-WESTOURS,
INC.,
Defendant-Intervenor-
Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
July 31, 2000--Anchorage, Alaska
Filed February 23, 2001
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt,
and
Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Reinhardt
_________________________________________________________________
2413
COUNSEL
Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan & Hartson
L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for the plaintiff-appellant.
Sean H. Donahue, United States Department
of Justice, Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources Division, Washington,
D.C.,
for the defendants-appellees.
2418
Cynthia Pickering Christianson, Anchorage,
Alaska, for the
defendant-intervenor-appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is
a place of "unri-
valed scenic and geological values associated
with natural
landscapes" and "wildlife species of inestimable
value to the
citizens." The Bay was proclaimed a national
monument in
1925 and a national park in 1980. UNESCO
designated Gla-
cier Bay an international biosphere reserve
in 1986 and a
world heritage site in 1992.
Not surprisingly, many people wish to visit
the park. As
there are no roads to Glacier Bay, most tourists
arrive by boat.
To be more specific, most -- approximately
80% of the
park's visitors -- arrive on large, thousand-passenger
cruise
ships. In 1996 the National Park Service
(Parks Service) com-
menced implementation of a plan that increased
the number
of times cruise ships could enter Glacier
Bay each summer
season immediately by 30% and overall by
72% if certain
conditions were met. In its environmental
assessments, the
Parks Service acknowledged that this plan
would expose the
park's wildlife to increased multiple vessel
encounters, noise
pollution, air pollution, and an increased
risk of vessel colli-
sions and oil spills. The Parks Service also
acknowledged that
it did not know how serious these dangers
to the environment
were, or whether other dangers existed at
all. Nevertheless,
declaring that its plan would have "no significant
impact" on
the environment, the Parks Service put it
into effect without
preparing an environmental impact statement
(EIS).
The plaintiff National Park and Conservation
Association
(NPCA), a nonprofit citizen organization,
alleges that the
2419
Parks Service's failure to prepare an EIS
violated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
S 4321 et seq.
It seeks an order requiring the Parks Service
to prepare an EIS
and enjoining implementation of the plan
pending its comple-
tion. The district court ruled that an EIS
was not required
because the Parks Service had made its findings
after ade-
quately "canvassing the existing knowledge
base. " We
reverse the district court's ruling and remand
with instructions
to enjoin the plan's increases in vessel
traffic, including any
portion already put into effect, until the
Parks Service has
completed an EIS.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
There may be no place on Earth more spectacular
than the
Glacier Bay. Located in the Alaskan panhandle,
surrounded
by snow-capped mountain ranges, Glacier Bay
extends sixty
miles inland and encompasses ten deep fjords,
four of which
contain actively calving tidewater glaciers,
and approximately
940 square miles of "pristine" marine waters.
The air quality,
though fragile, is still unspoiled and permits
those fortunate
enough to be visitors a crisp, clear view
of the Bay with its
glacier faces as well as the opportunity
to breathe the fresh
and invigorating air. The park is the habitat
for an extraordi-
nary array of wildlife. On the land, pioneer
plant communities
grow in areas recently exposed by receding
glaciers. Moose,
wolves, and black and brown bears roam the
park's spruce
and hemlock rain forest. Bald eagles, kittiwakes,
murrelets,
and other seabirds nest along the shore;
sea otters, harbor
seals, Steller sea lions, harbor and Dall's
porpoises, minke,
killer, and humpback whales reside in the
bay.
The Steller sea lion and the humpback whale,
two of the
marine mammal species that inhabit Glacier
Bay, are imper-
iled. The Steller sea lion was listed as
a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1531 et
seq., in 1990. The worldwide population of
the species
2420
declined by as much as 48% in the thirty
years prior to 1992.1
Glacier Bay has several "haul-out" sites
where hundreds of
Steller sea lions gather. The humpback whale,
"the most
gamesome and lighthearted of all the whales,"
Herman Mel-
ville, Moby Dick, 123 (Harrison Hayford &
Hershel Parker,
eds., W.W. Norton & Co. 1967) (1851),
has been listed as an
endangered species since the enactment of
the ESA in 1973.
Until a moratorium was instituted in 1965,
commercial whal-
ing decimated the worldwide population of
humpback whales.
Today only 10,000 to 12,000 remain.2 A subpopulation
of
humpbacks spends the summer feeding season
in southeast
Alaska, including the waters of Glacier Bay;
other humpbacks
remain there throughout the year.
Watercraft -- cruise ships, tour boats, charter
boats, and
private boats -- provide primary access to
Glacier Bay's
attractions. Approximately 80% of the park's
visitors are
cruise ship passengers. According to the
Parks Service's envi-
ronmental assessment, the "key attraction
of the visit to Gla-
cier Bay . . . [is] [t]he glaciers at the
head of the West Arm
[of the Bay.] [They] are larger, more active,
and considered
by the [cruise-ship] companies to offer a
more spectacular expe-
rience."3 The ships linger at the glaciers
from between fifteen
_________________________________________________________________
1 In 1997 the Steller sea lion was reclassified,
for the worse, as an endan-
gered species. Greenpeace v. Nat'l Marine
Fisheries Serv., 80 F. Supp. 2d
1137, 1139 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
2 In 1991 the U.S. National Marine Fisheries
Service (Fisheries Service)
established a Final Recovery Plan for the
humpback. The plan sets a long-
term goal of restoring 60% of the species's
pre-whaling population (about
125,000) and a more immediate goal of maintaining
and enhancing "cur-
rent or historical habitats used by humpback
whales by reducing distur-
bance from human-produced underwater noise
in important habitats when
humpback whales are present and [encouraging]
government entities at all
levels to correct existing impacts on habitats
of humpback whales."
3 To get there, cruise ships cross the entrance
to the Bay and traverse its
western bank, both areas particularly frequented
by humpback whales. See
Christine M. Gabriele, Population Characteristics
of Humpback Whales in
Glacier Bay and Adjacent Waters 9 (1994).
2421
minutes to an hour and provide a large, high
viewing platform
from which to witness the crack and crash
of the great ice
masses as they cast off huge shards of floating
ice. Although
the ships' height permits an unobstructed
view of the park's
geologic features, it limits close views
of the wildlife and veg-
etation that form such a significant feature
of the park.
Between 1968 and 1978, vessel traffic in Glacier
Bay
increased dramatically. In 1978 the U.S.
National Marine
Fisheries Service (Fisheries Service) produced
a "biological
opinion" based on its studies of the humpback
whale popula-
tion in Glacier Bay. The biological opinion
expressed concern
over the "uncontrolled increase of vessel
traffic " in the
whales' departure from the Bay during 1978
and 1979, and
cautioned that a continued increase in the
amount of vessel
traffic "would likely jeopardize the continued
existence of the
humpback whale population frequenting southeast
Alaska."
The Fisheries Service recommended that the
Parks Service
regulate the number of vessels entering Glacier
Bay; restrict
vessels from approaching and pursuing whales;
and conduct
studies on whale feeding behavior, the effect
of vessels on
whale behavior, and the acoustic environment.4
The Parks Service soon thereafter promulgated
regulations
governing the entry and activity of cruise
ships and other ves-
sels in Glacier Bay. The regulations provided
that only two
cruise ships could enter the bay each day,
with a maximum of
89 cruise ship entries between June 1 and
August 31. Smaller
boats, designated "private/pleasure craft,"
were limited to
twenty-one entries per day with a seasonal
maximum of 538
_________________________________________________________________
4 The acoustic environment appears to be
very important to humpback
whales. As many a schoolchild is aware, humpbacks
produce a variety of
sounds, including moans, grunts, screams,
and long complex "songs."
According to the Parks Service, "[p]ostulated
functions for whale vocal-
izations include maintenance of distance
among individuals, species and
individual recognition, maintenance of social
organization, localization of
underwater topography, and contextual information
about feeding, court-
ship, or alarm."
2422
entries. Vessels were prohibited from intentionally
position-
ing themselves within a quarter of a nautical
mile of a whale
or attempting to pursue a whale. Within "designated
whale
waters," vessels had to operate at a constant
speed of ten
knots or less and follow a mid-channel course.
In 1983 the Fisheries Service issued a second
biological
opinion, which concluded in part:
[I]f the existing
restrictions on the operation of ves-
sels within
the Bay were removed, the associated
disturbance
would be likely to jeopardize the contin-
ued existence
of the Southeast Alaska humpback
whale stock.
. . . [A]ny increase in vessel traffic in
Glacier Bay
probably will add to the level of traffic
encountered
by humpback whales in southeast
Alaska, and
thereby add to cumulative impacts to the
humpback whale.
Nevertheless, the Fisheries Service opinion
stated that a slight
increase in vessel traffic was tolerable,
provided that the num-
ber of individual whales entering the bay
did not fall below
the 1982 level and that appropriate corrective
measures were
taken. Accordingly, in 1984 the Parks Service
promulgated a
Vessel Management Plan (VMP) and regulations
that pro-
vided for a 20% increase, in increments,
in the previously
authorized vessel entry quotas. This overall
increase -- allow-
ing for a total of 107 cruise ship entries
per season -- was
fully realized in 1988.
In September 1992 the Parks Service completed
an internal
draft of a new VMP that proposed to increase
the then current
level of cruise ship entries in Glacier Bay
by an additional
72%. On February 19, 1993, the Fisheries
Service issued a
third biological opinion expressing its concern
"about the
decline in humpback whale use of Glacier
Bay," and stating
that there were "no studies to show that
this decline is not due
to avoidance of vessel traffic." Although
the Fisheries Service
2423
did not oppose the draft VMP, it urged the
Parks Service "to
take a conservative approach in all management
actions that
may affect humpback whales" and to implement
particular
research and monitoring programs.5 The Fisheries
Service did
not find that the Parks Service's proposed
action was "likely
to jeopardize the continued existence and
recovery " of Steller
sea lions.
As mandated by NEPA, the Parks Service investigated
whether a substantial cruise-ship increase
would significantly
affect the environment in Glacier Bay. See
42 U.S.C.
S 4332(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. S 1508.27. In May
1995 the Parks
Service issued a combined proposed VMP and
environmental
assessment (EA). An EA is a document that,
under NEPA, (1)
provides "sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining
whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a
finding of no significant impact;" (2) aids
an agency's com-
pliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary;
and (3) facili-
tates preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.
40 C.F.R.
S 1508.9(a). An EA is a "less formal and
less rigorous" docu-
ment than an EIS. Conner v. Burford, 848
F.2d 1441, 1446
(9th Cir. 1998).
The combined VMP/EA reported the existence
of environ-
mental questions that went far beyond the
potential impact on
the humpback whales. It also described and
assessed six alter-
_________________________________________________________________
5 "Because there has not been systematic
monitoring of humpback whale
prey density, distribution and type, and
noise produced by vessels, it is
impossible to ascribe whale distribution
shifts to one cause or another.
However, it is [the Fisheries Service's]
opinion that for the next three sea-
sons (1993, 1994, and 1995), the levels of
vessel use combined with vessel
operation requirements as described in the
September 25, 1992, Vessel
Management Plan and environmental assessment
are not likely to jeopar-
dize the continued existence of the North
Pacific population of humpback
whales." This opinion did not consider the
localized effects of the pro-
posed action on the portion of the North
Pacific whale population that
actually uses Glacier Bay, nor did it address
possible effects that were sig-
nificant but less than likely to jeopardize
the population's continued exis-
tence.
2424
native approaches for managing vessels in
Glacier Bay, rang-
ing from Alternative Four's reduction in
vessel traffic by
between 14% and 22%, to Alternative One's
maintenance of
the status quo, to Alternative Five's increase
of cruise ship
entries by 72%. Notwithstanding the environmental
problems
it recognized, the Parks Service expressed
its preference for
Alternative Five. This alternative maintained
the limit of two
cruise ship entries per day, but increased
the total number of
seasonal entries from 107 to 184.6 It did
not increase seasonal
entries for other vessels.
The Parks Service conducted six public hearings
on the
VMP. The Parks Service received approximately
450 com-
ments, approximately 85% of which opposed
Alternative Five
and favored Alternative Four. The Sierra
Club, the Alaska
Wildlife Alliance, and the plaintiff NPCA
spoke out against
Alternative Five at the hearings, and submitted
expert opinion
and evidence in opposition to the Parks Service's
findings. On
March 20, 1996, the Parks Service announced
its decision to
implement a modified version of Alternative
Five as its new
VMP. Under this modified plan, the seasonal
entry quota for
cruise ships would increase by 30% for 1996
and 1997, and
by as much as 72% thereafter if certain conditions
were met.
Also, the entry quotas for charter boats
and private/pleasure
craft would increase by 8% and 15%, respectively.
An accom-
panying revised EA, titled "Impacts of the
Modified Alterna-
tive," discussed the effects of the new VMP
on threatened and
endangered marine mammals, other marine mammals,
birds,
and the human environment, including air
quality.
The revised EA included the following observations:
- Steller sea
lions using open water "would be sub-
_________________________________________________________________
6 The EA identifies the "season " as lasting
from June 1 through August
31. The proposed increase permits vessel
entries every day of the season.
Accordingly, under Alternative Five, there
will be thirty-eight more days
of vessel traffic each season.
2425
ject to increased
vessel traffic and its related distur-
bance. Little
is known about the effects of the
disturbance."
- The increased
vessel traffic would expose the har-
bor seal,
harbor porpoise, Dall's porpoise, humpback
whale, killer
whale, and minke whale to "increased
levels of
disturbance," causing the animals to expend
energy reserves
and possibly compromising "the sur-
vival and
reproduction of individual animals." In
addition,
"the potential for daily and seasonal expo-
sure of humpback
whales to underwater noise would
increase."
"The effect of increased levels of distur-
bance" on
these cetacean populations, it concluded,
was "unknown."
- Marine mammals
"using open-water habitats
would be subject
to increased vessel traffic and its
related disturbance.
However, little is known about
the effects
of the disturbance." The risk of vessels
colliding
with marine mammals would increase,
although "the
degree of increase is unknown." Simi-
larly, there
would be an increased risk of ship colli-
sions, other
accidents, and associated fuel spills.
"The rate
of actual spills could increase, but the
degree of
increase in unknown."
- "The degree
to which disturbance and displace-
ment would
affect the humpback whale populations
in Glacier
Bay is unknown. Several mitigation mea-
sures implemented
under this alternative would
reduce the
risk of whale/vessel interactions and the
level of potential
effects on individual whales. The
implementation
of oil-spill response plans by the
cruise ship
industry could reduce oil spill risks to
individual
whales."
2426
- It was "unknown"
whether populations of Marbled
Murrelets
and Kittlitz Murrelets would change under
the VMP.
- "The overall
effect on bald eagle populations is
unknown."
- "It is unknown
if waterfowl populations would
change under
this alternative."
Finally, the revised EA acknowledged that
the increase in
cruise ship entries would "result in more
violations of state air
quality standards," but stated that the "biological
effects of
these air pollutants from stack emissions
are unknown."
At the same time it released its revised VMP
and EA, 7 the
Parks Service also released a proposed Finding
of No Signifi-
cant Impact (FONSI). As its title suggests,
a FONSI states the
reasons why an agency's proposed action will
not have a sig-
nificant effect on the environment and, therefore,
it believes
that the preparation of an EIS is unnecessary
under NEPA.
See 40 C.F.R. S 1508.13. The Parks Service's
Glacier Bay
FONSI stated, in relevant part:
The [Parks
Service] has determined that the modi-
fied alternative
[Five] . . . can be implemented with
no significant
adverse effect to natural and cultural
resources
as documented by the environmental
assessment.
Key environmental issues associated
with the modified
alternative include effects on
marine mammals
and birds from vessel disturbance
and air quality
degradation from cruise ship stack
emissions.
Some disturbance to these resources
would be expected.
However, the mitigation strate-
gies included
in this action would significantly
_________________________________________________________________
7 The revised VMP and EA will hereinafter
be referred to simply as the
VMP and EA.
2427
reduce environmental
effects resulting from vessel
entries.
The NPCA submitted objections to the VMP/EA
and the pro-
posed FONSI on April 19, 1996. The Parks
Service adopted
the VMP/EA and issued its FONSI and final
regulations on
the plan on May 30. See 61 Fed. Reg. 27,008,
codified at 16
C.F.R. 13.65(b).
On May 2, 1997, the NPCA filed suit against
Secretary
Babbitt and Dennis J. Galvin, Acting Director
of the Parks
Service. The NPCA requested declaratory and
injunctive
relief requiring the Parks Service "to rescind
the new VMP
and prohibiting any activities to be conducted
pursuant to
these rules until such time as [the Parks
Service has] complied
with NEPA by preparing an adequate EIS for
use in evaluat-
ing the new VMP before reimplementing it."
Holland Amer-
ica Line Westours, Inc. ("Westours"), one
of the two major
cruise ship operators in Glacier Bay, intervened
as a defen-
dant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a).
The NPCA, the Parks Service, and Westours
each filed
motions for summary judgment. On August 24,
1999, the dis-
trict court issued an order denying NPCA's
motion, granting
the Parks Service's motion, and denying Westours's
motion
as moot. The court observed that the EA made
it "fairly clear
that interactions between whales and vessels
might be seri-
ously disruptive to wildlife residing in
the Park. " It also
acknowledged "that the effects cruise ship
operations have on
Glacier Bay National Park and the animals
that live there are
unknown, either before ship operations increased
or since,"
and that the "Modified Alternative Description[EA]
attached
to the FONSI contains a long list of uncertainties
about the
potential effects of increased vessel traffic."
While it pro-
posed that further studies be conducted,
it determined that the
existence of the numerous uncertainties was
not sufficient to
require an EIS. "The EA in this case," the
district court wrote,
"thoroughly canvasses all existing information
and recognizes
2428
that theoretical harms might occur, but concludes
that there is
no evidence suggesting that a significant
risk exists that the
harms will occur." It concluded:
[A] modest
increase in the number of visitors may be
allowed while
the studies are commissioned and the
existing data
base increased with care taken through
ameliorization
[sic] to recognize and eliminate prob-
lems as they
arise.
The district court granted the Parks Service's
cross-motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case.
The NPCA
appealed, and Westours cross-appealed.
ANALYSIS
I. THE PARKS SERVICE VIOLATED NEPA
A. Standard of Review
We review a district court's decision to grant
or deny a
motion for summary judgment de novo. Metcalf
v. Daley, 214
F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation
omitted). In review-
ing an agency's decision not to prepare an
EIS under NEPA,
we employ an arbitrary and capricious standard,
Blue Moun-
tains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood,
161 F.3d 1208, 1211
(9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1003
(1999), that
requires us to determine whether the agency
has taken a "hard
look" at the consequences of its actions,
"based [its decision]
on a consideration of the relevant factors,"
id., and provided
a "convincing statement of reasons to explain
why a project's
impacts are insignificant." Metcalf, 214
F.3d at 1142.
B. Environmental Assessment
[1] NEPA requires that an Environmental Impact
Statement
(EIS) be prepared for all "major Federal
actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment."
42 U.S.C.A.
2429
S 4332(2)(C). However, if, as here, an agency's
regulations
do not categorically require the preparation
of an EIS, then
the agency must first prepare an Environmental
Assessment
(EA) to determine whether the action will
have a significant
effect on the environment. See 40 C.F.R.S
1501.4; Salmon
River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32
F.3d 1346, 1356
(9th Cir. 1994). If the EA establishes that
the agency's action
"may have a significant effect upon the ..
. environment, an
EIS must be prepared." Foundation for N.
Am. Wild Sheep v.
United States Dep't of Agric., 681 F.2d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir.
1982) (emphasis added); see also Blue Mountains
, 161 F.3d
at 1212. If not, the agency must issue a
Finding of No Signifi-
cant Impact (FONSI), see Blue Mountains,
161 F.3d at 1212;
40 C.F.R. SS 1501.4, 1508.9, accompanied
by" `a convincing
statement of reasons' to explain why a project's
impacts are
insignificant." Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d
at 1212 (quoting
Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714,
717 (9th Cir.
1988).
[2] Whether there may be a significant effect
on the envi-
ronment requires consideration of two broad
factors:"context
and intensity." See 40 C.F.R. S 1508.27;
42 U.S.C.
S 4332(2)(C); see also Sierra Club v. United
States Forest
Serv., 843 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1988).
8 Context simply
_________________________________________________________________
8 "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires
considerations of both con-
text and intensity:
(a) Context.
This means that the significance of an action must
be analyzed
in several contexts such as society as a whole
(human, national),
the affected region, the affected interests, and
the locality.
Significance varies with the setting of the proposed
action. For
instance, in the case of a site-specific action, signifi-
cance would
usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather
than in the
world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects
are relevant.
(b) Intensity.
This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible
officials
must bear in mind that more than one agency may make
decisions
about partial aspects of a major action. The following
should be
considered in evaluating intensity:
2430
delimits the scope of the agency's action,
including the inter-
ests affected. Intensity relates to the degree
to which the
_________________________________________________________________
(1)
Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A signifi-
cant effect
may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on
balance the
effect will be beneficial.
(2) The
degree to which the proposed action affects public
health or
safety.
(3) Unique
characteristics of the geographic area such as prox-
imity to historic
or cultural resources, park lands, prime farm-
lands, wetlands,
wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical
areas.
(4) The
degree to which the effects on the quality of the
human environment
are likely to be highly controversial.
(5) The
degree to which the possible effects on the human
environment
are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown
risks.
(6)
The degree to which the action may establish a precedent
for future
actions with significant effects or represents a decision
in principle
about a future consideration.
(7) Whether
the action is related to other actions with individ-
ually insignificant
but cumulatively significant impacts. Signifi-
cance exists
if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively
significant
impact on the environment. Significance cannot be
avoided by
terming an action temporary or by breaking it down
into small
component parts.
(8) The
degree to which the action may adversely affect dis-
tricts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible
for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places or may
cause loss
or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or his-
torical resources.
(9) The
degree to which the action may adversely affect an
endangered
or threatened species or its habitat that has been
determined
to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
(10)
Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State,
or local law
or requirements imposed for the protection of the
environment.
40 C.F.R. S 1508.27.
2431
agency action affects the locale and interests
identified in the
context part of the inquiry. Here, the context
is Glacier Bay
National Park, its natural setting, its variegated
non-human
inhabitants, and its pure but fragile air
quality; intensity must
be established in this case by using three
of the standards enu-
merated in S 1508.27: (1) the unique characteristics
of the
geographic area; (2) the degree to which
VMP Alternative
Five's possible effects on the human environment
are highly
uncertain; and (3) the degree of controversy
surrounding those
possible effects. The unique characteristics
of Glacier Bay are
undisputed and of overwhelming importance.
Accordingly,
we next consider the agency's determination
in light of the
degree of uncertainty manifested, and the
degree of contro-
versy generated. Either of these factors
may be sufficient to
require preparation of an EIS in appropriate
circumstances.
Sierra Club, 843 F.2d at 1193, 1194; Blue
Mountains, 161
F.3d at 1212-14. In the end, we conclude
that the Parks Ser-
vice clearly erred and that the high degree
of uncertainty and
the substantial controversy regarding the
effects on the quality
of the environment each necessitates preparation
of an EIS.
C. Uncertainty
[3] An agency must generally prepare an EIS
if the envi-
ronmental effects of a proposed agency action
are highly
uncertain. See Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at
1213 ("significant
environmental impact" mandating preparation
of an EIS
where "effects are `highly uncertain or involve
unique or
unknown risks' ").9 Preparation of an EIS
is mandated where
uncertainty may be resolved by further collection
of data, see
id. at 1213-14 (lack of supporting data and
cursory treatment
of environmental effects in EA does not support
refusal to
_________________________________________________________________
9 Greenpeace Action v. Franklin , 14 F.3d
1324 (9th Cir. 1993), is not to
the contrary. There the court simply noted
that the cases cited did "not
stand for the proposition that the existence
of uncertainty mandates the
preparation of an impact statement." 14 F.3d
at 1334 n.11. Blue Mountains
has since filled that gap. 161 F.3d at 1213-14.
2432
produce EIS), or where the collection of
such data may pre-
vent "speculation on potential . . . effects.
The purpose of an
EIS is to obviate the need for speculation
by insuring that
available data are gathered and analyzed
prior to the imple-
mentation of the proposed action." Sierra
Club, 843 F.2d at
1195.
[4] Here, scientific evidence presented in
the Parks Ser-
vice's own studies revealed very definite
environmental
effects. The uncertainty was over the intensity
of those
effects. The FONSI reported increased daily
and seasonal
exposure of humpback whales and other denizens
of the Bay
to underwater noise (and predicted a range
of adverse behav-
ioral responses), "traffic effects" (including
increased risk of
collision, affecting whales, harbor seals,
sea otters, murrelets,
and molting waterfowl), and increased risk
of oil pollution for
all animal life in the Park. An increase
in cruise ships would
also "result in more violations of state
air quality standards for
cruise ship stack emissions."10 Among the
specific effects set
forth in the VMP/EA upon which the FONSI
was based were
that increased vessel entry into the Bay
would: subject stellar
sea lions to additional disturbance; increase
the escape pat-
terns of various types of whales; potentially
increase mortality
rates and change the social patterns of the
harbor seal; pre-
clude sea otters from colonizing the upper
Bay; and increase
disturbance of feeding murrelets, other seabird
nesting colo-
nies, and bald eagles.
[5] The EA describes the intensity or practical
conse-
quences of these effects, individually and
collectively, as "un-
known." See pages 2425-2427, supra . The
uncertainty
_________________________________________________________________
10 The initial EA reported that"[t]he airsheds
of the steep-walled fjords
of Glacier Bay are susceptible to visible
stack emissions becoming trapped
by temperature inversions and light winds.
. . .[T]he tolerance for air pol-
lution in Glacier Bay is extremely low."
In a study conducted in 1986 and
1987, 25 of 77 cruise ships's emissions were
over twice the permitted
duration.
2433
manifested through the EA stems from two
sources: an
absence of information about the practical
effect of increased
traffic on the Bay and its inhabitants; and
a failure to present
adequate proposals to offset environmental
damage through
mitigation measures. The lack of data regarding
the practical
effect of increased traffic, like the failure
to investigate envi-
ronmental impacts in Blue Mountains, 161
F.3d at 1213,
undermines "[t]he [Parks Service's] EA .
. . [which] is where
the [agency's] defense of its position must
be found." Id. That
document states that "[l]ittle is known about
the effects of the
[cruise ship] disturbance" on steller sea
lions; "[t]he effect of
increased levels of disturbance" on Glacier
Bay's cetacean
populations is "unknown"; and "the degree
of increase [in oil
spills as a result of increased traffic]
is unknown." It also
states that the effect of noise and air pollution
on murrelets,
bald eagles, and waterfowls remains "unknown"
because
unstudied. Moreover, the extent to which
air pollution will
diminish the beauty and quality of the natural
environment is
also unknown.11 The Parks Service's EA does,
however,
establish both that such information may
be obtainable and
that it would be of substantial assistance
in the evaluation of
the environmental impact of the planned vessel
increase. The
EA proposes a park research and monitoring
program to "fill
information needs, and understand the effects
of vessel traffic
on air quality, marine mammals [and] birds
. .. to assist in the
prediction, assessment, and management of
potential effects
on the human, marine, and coastal environments
of Glacier
Bay resulting from human use of the environment
with partic-
ular emphasis on traffic." That is precisely
the information
and understanding that is required before
a decision that may
have a significant adverse impact on the
environment is made,
and precisely why an EIS must be prepared
in this case.
_________________________________________________________________
11 The initial EA acknowledged, however,
that the proposed increase in
vessel traffic "could significantly impair
the visual and photographic scene
at the glacier faces in Tarr Inlet, the high
point of a Glacier Bay cruise,
and elsewhere in the park."
2434
The Parks Service proposes to increase the
risk of harm to
the environment and then perform its studies.
It has in fact
already implemented the first part of its
VMP. This approach
has the process exactly backwards. See Sierra
Club, 843 F.2d
at 1195. Before one brings about a potentially
significant and
irreversible change to the environment, an
EIS must be pre-
pared that sufficiently explores the intensity
of the environ-
mental effects it acknowledges. A part of
the preparation
process here could well be to conduct the
studies that the Park
Service recognizes are needed. That might
be done here by
performing the studies of the current vessel
traffic and extrap-
olating or projecting the effects of the
proposed increase.12
Ultimately, the Park Service may develop
other means for
obtaining the information it currently lacks.
The point is,
however, that the "hard look" must be taken
before, not after,
the environmentally-threatening actions are
put into effect.
[6] The Parks Service's lack of knowledge
does not excuse
the preparation of an EIS; rather it requires
the Parks Service
to do the necessary work to obtain it. In
Blue Mountains, we
found that general statements about possible
environmental
effects failed the "hard look" test required
under NEPA. 161
F.3d at 1213. Here, the Parks Service's repeated
generic state-
ment that the effects are unknown does not
constitute the req-
_________________________________________________________________
12 With respect to the cruise ships, the
addition of thirty-eight extra days
of cruising may simply require the service
to determine the current effects
of vessel traffic, and extrapolate or project
from that data the effects of
increased traffic, taking into account all
available relevant information,
including technological change affecting
the cruise ship-industry. It
appears that the impact of the other increases
in vessel traffic may also be
determined by studying the effects of the
current traffic rates. We do not
decide here, however, how the EIS should
be conducted. That is for the
Park Service to determine initially in the
context of the applicable statutes
and regulations. We intend only to observe
that in this case, unlike some
others, an actual study can probably be conducted
on the basis of existing
conditions and that it is not necessary to
consider the intensity of the effect
of vessel traffic entirely in the abstract.
There are practical consequences
resulting from the current level of traffic
that may be studied and consid-
ered in the final report.
2435
uisite "hard look" mandated by the statute
if preparation of an
EIS is to be avoided. See id. (" `general
statements about
"possible" effects and "some risk" do not
constitute a "hard
look" absent a justification regarding why
more definitive
information could not be provided' ") (citing
Neighbors of
Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv.,
137 F.3d 1372,
1380 (9th Cir. 1998)). The Park Service's
statement of rea-
sons does not provide a convincing explanation
as to why the
requisite information could not be obtained
prior to placing
the VMP into effect. Id. In short, the information
currently
provided by the Parks Service in its EA leaves
us with the
firm impression that, absent successful mitigation
measures,
there is a substantial possibility that the
VMP will signifi-
cantly affect Glacier Bay Park, including
the air, the water,
and the various species that inhabit the
Park.
[7] The second source of uncertainty is the
Parks Service's
ability to offset the environmental impact
of the increase in
vessel traffic through its proposed mitigation
measures. An
agency's decision to forego issuing an EIS
may be justified in
some circumstances by the adoption of such
measures. Wet-
lands Action Network v. United States Army
Corps of Eng'rs,
222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000); Friends
of Payette v.
Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Co., 988 F.2d
989, 993 (9th
Cir. 1993). "If significant measures are
taken to`mitigate the
project's effects, they need not completely
compensate for
adverse environmental impacts.' " Wetlands
Action Network,
222 F.3d at 1121 (quoting Friends of Payette,
988 F.2d at
993). While the agency is not required to
develop a complete
mitigation plan detailing the "precise nature
of the mitigation
measures," the proposed mitigation measures
must be "devel-
oped to a reasonable degree." Id.13 A " `perfunctory
descrip-
_________________________________________________________________
13 In Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. United States
Dep't of Transp., 42 F.3d
517, 528 n.11 (9th Cir. 1994), the court
held that "scientific uncertainties
in the mitigation measures" need not be discussed
during the EIS discus-
sion period. Such uncertainties must be discussed,
however, during the
EIS preparation period. 40 C.F.R. S 1502.22
2436
tion,' " Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams,
236 F.3d
468, 473 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Neighbors
of Cuddy
Mountain, 137 F.3d at 1380), or " `mere listing'
of mitigation
measures, without supporting analytical data,"
is insufficient
to support a finding of no significant impact.
Id. (quoting
Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d
1146, 1151
(9th Cir. 1998)). In evaluating the sufficiency
of mitigation
measures, we consider whether they constitute
an adequate
buffer against the negative impacts that
may result from the
authorized activity. Specifically, we examine
whether the mit-
igation measures will render such impacts
so minor as to not
warrant an EIS. See Greenpeace Action, 14
F.3d at 1332.
[8] There is a paucity of analytic data to
support the Parks
Service's conclusion that the mitigation
measures would be
adequate in light of the potential environmental
harms. By
contrast, in Okanogan the Forest Service
conducted computer
modeling to predict the quality and quantity
of environmental
effects, discussed the monitoring measures
to be put in place,
ranked the probable efficacy of the different
measures,
detailed steps to achieve compliance should
the measures fail,
and identified the environmental standards
by which mitiga-
tion success could be measured. Id. at 473-75.
Because the
Forest Service "considered extensively the
potential effects
and mitigation processes," the court found
that discussion of
the mitigation measures was adequate to constitute
the con-
vincing statement of reasons to permit preparation
of a
FONSI. Id. at 477 (emphasis omitted). In
this case, however,
the Parks Service did not conduct a study
of the anticipated
effects of the mitigation measures nor did
it provide criteria
for an ongoing examination of them or for
taking any needed
corrective action (except for the plan to
conduct "studies").
As with the rest of its proposal, it planned
to act first and
study later.
The Parks Service first described its proposed
mitigation
measures in the initial EA. That document
reflects the uncer-
tainty that exists as to whether the mitigation
measures would
2437
work: moreover, it is unclear from that document
whether the
measures are sufficiently related to the
effects they are
designed to cure. The Parks Service simply
noted, for exam-
ple, that mitigation measures "could mitigate
some potential
effects to humpbacks in concentrated whale-use
areas";
"could reduce whale/vessel collisions and
reduce the noise
emanating from the ships"; "[s]pecial-use-area
closures and
restrictions implemented under . . . alternative[five]
may off-
set some of the expected disturbance." Air
pollution measures
"would be expected to contribute to a reduction
in cruise ship
stack emissions over time." Further, the
service stated that it:
intends to
institute a comprehensive research and
monitoring
program to fill informational needs and
quantity the
effects of vessel traffic on air quality,
marine mammals,
birds and visitor-use enjoyment.
The monitoring
program, developed within one year
of the record
of decision, will stipulate research and
protection
actions [Parks Service] will undertake to
ensure that
environmental effects do not exceed
acceptable
levels. . .
The final EA was similarly uncertain with
respect to the
proposed measures' effects. It recognized
that a 10-knot speed
restriction to offset the increased vessel
traffic might disturb
the creatures in the park, but that "very
little is known about
the effects of the disturbance." The EA also
stated that the
increase in seasonal entries "could reduce
whale/vessel colli-
sions and reduce the noise level emanating
from the ships
. . . , [f]ollow-up research and monitoring
will be essential to
define humpback whale use patterns in Glacier
Bay resulting
from this alternative"; and that "requiring
cruise ships to
implement oil-spill response plans could
mitigate the effects
of oil spills." As for air pollution, "the
magnitude of increased
violations would presumably be reduced over
time. " There is
no indication, however, as to how long any
such reduction
might take or how great a reduction might
ultimately be
accomplished. In short, there is no evidence
that the mitiga-
2438
tion measures would significantly combat
the mostly "un-
known" or inadequately known effects of the
increase in
vessel traffic. The EA's speculative and
conclusory state-
ments are insufficient to demonstrate that
the mitigation mea-
sures would render the environmental impact
so minor as to
not warrant an EIS. See Greenpeace Action,
14 F.3d at 1332.
It is instructive to contrast this case with
Wetlands Action
Network. In that case, the court made clear
that, though the
mitigation measures were underdeveloped,
the imposition of
special conditions, enforced through a permit,
and reviewed
by various other agencies ensured that the
measures would be
enforced in a manner that properly reduced
negative environ-
mental impact. See Wetlands Action Network,
222 F.3d at
1121. Here, there were no such special conditions
applied to
the Parks Service or the tour boat operators
in connection with
the measures designed to mitigate the effects
of the proposed
increase in cruise ships. In fact, whether
the mitigation mea-
sures are fully enforced or not, the EA reflects
significant
uncertainty as to whether they could provide
an adequate
buffer against the harmful effects of the
plan. This is under-
standable in light of the fact that the extent
of those harmful
effects is itself unknown, and that in such
circumstance it is
particularly difficult to estimate the effects
of mitigation mea-
sures. That fact, however, does not help
make the measures
adequate for purposes of avoiding the preparation
of an EIS
-- quite the contrary.
As with the question of the extent of the
unremediated
injury that might otherwise occur, the question
of the impact
of the proposed mitigation measures must
be studied as part
of the preparation of an EIS rather than
after the injury has
transpired. The fact that the agency plans
to test the effect of
its mitigation measures does not relieve
it of the obligation to
prepare an EIS prior to the time of the threatened
environmen-
tal damage. Rather, the Parks Service's testing
proposal
shows that the information necessary to determine
the impact
of any mitigation measures, like the information
relating to
2439
the extent of the injurious effects, may
well be obtainable
before any environmental injury occurs. The
proposed mitiga-
tion studies thus argue in favor of preparing
an EIS, not
against it.
The district court found that the agency's
decision not to
prepare an EIS was justified because the
uncertainty reflected
the existing state of knowledge. The passage
of cruise ships
through Glacier Bay is not a new development,
however.
Both the vessels' sailings and the dispute
over the potential
environmental damage have existed for a substantial
period of
time. No new scientific developments are
required in order to
obtain the requisite information. The Parks
Service itself pro-
poses to conduct studies which it anticipates
may provide the
answers. We simply hold that, under these
circumstances,
where significant environmental damage may
occur to a trea-
sured natural resource, the studies must
be conducted first, not
afterwards.
D. Controversy
The district court also found that NPCA had
not made a
sufficient showing of controversy to require
preparation of an
EIS. Again, we disagree.
[9] Agencies must prepare environmental impact
state-
ments whenever a federal action is "controversial,"
that is,
when "substantial questions are raised as
to whether a project
. . . may cause significant degradation of
some human envi-
ronmental factor," Northwest Envtl. Def.
Ctr. v. Bonneville
Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1539 (9th Cir.
1997) (quoting
LaFlamme v. FERC, 852 F.2d 389, 397 (9th
Cir. 1988))
(Reinhardt, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part), or
there is "a substantial dispute [about] the
size, nature, or effect
of the major Federal action." Blue Mountains
, 161 F.3d at
1212 (citing Greenpeace Action, 14 F.3d at
1335; Sierra
Club, 843 F.2d at 1190). A substantial dispute
exists when
evidence, raised prior to the preparation
of an EIS or FONSI,
2440
see Greenpeace Action, 14 F.3d at 1334 (holding
that party
may not establish controversy post hoc, when
at the time of
the agency's action no controversy existed),
casts serious
doubt upon the reasonableness of an agency's
conclusions.14
See Idaho Sporting Congress, 137 F.3d at
1150; Blue
Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1212. NEPA then places
the burden
on the agency to come forward with a "well-reasoned
expla-
nation" demonstrating why those responses
disputing the
EA's conclusions "do not suffice to create
a public contro-
versy based on potential environmental consequences."
LaFlamme, 852 F.2d at 401 (citing Jones v.
Gordon, 792 F.2d
821, 829 (1986)).15 The term "well reasoned
explanation" is
simply a less direct way of saying that the
explanation must
be "convincing." See Metcalf, 214 F.3d at
1142.
[10] After publication of the initial EA,
and before publica-
tion of the EA and FONSI, the Parks Service
received 450
comments on the VMP, approximately 85% of
which opposed
Alternative Five and favored Alternative
Four. This volume
of negative comment is more than sufficient
to meet the "out-
pouring of public protest" discussed in Greenpeace
Action.16
_________________________________________________________________
14 Although a court should not take sides
in a battle of the experts,
Greenpeace Action, 14 F.3d at 1333; see also
Wetlands Action Network,
222 F.3d at 1120-21, it must decide whether
the agency considered con-
flicting expert testimony in preparing its
FONSI, and whether the agency's
methodology indicates that it took a hard
look at the proposed action by
reasonably and fully informing itself of
the appropriate facts. See Idaho
Sporting Congress, 137 F.3d at 1150 (precluding
the agency from relying
on expert opinion in the absence of hard
data).
15 Consensus among the parties over the proposed
measures is ordinarily
sufficient to satisfy the agency's burden.
See Greenpeace Action, 14 F.3d
1334 (holding that consensus among objecting
parties before agency
declined to prepare EIS sufficient to rebut
showing of controversy); Bon-
neville Power, 117 F.3d at 1536 (holding
that where agency cooperated
with objecting parties, and alleviated most
of those parties concerns,
agency need not prepare EIS). No such consensus
existed here.
16 That case distinguished other showings
of public controversy made in
cases such as Wild Sheep, 681 F.2d at 1175
and n.10, by requiring that any
"outpouring of public protest" be contemporaneous
with the period for
commentating on the EA, and holding that
a post hoc dispute was insuffi-
cient to establish the necessary type of
controversy. Greenpeace Action,
14 F.3d at 1334. That is not the case here.
2441
See 14 F.3d at 1334. More important, to the
extent the com-
ments urged that the EA's analysis was incomplete,
and the
mitigation uncertain, they cast substantial
doubt on the ade-
quacy of the Parks Service's methodology
and data. The dis-
pute between NPCA and the Parks Service thus
goes beyond
a disagreement of qualified experts over
the "reasoned con-
clusions" as to what the data reveal. See
Greenpeace Action,
14 F.3d at 1335.17 Here, the agency's conclusions
were not
reached by reasoned extrapolation from the
data, rather the
data were simply insufficient. The Parks
Service acknowl-
edged that an increase in vessel traffic
would have an environ-
mental impact. The data, however, did not
establish the
intensity of that impact, nor the efficacy
of the mitigation
measures designed to offset that unquantified
impact. NPCA
asserted that the effects on the environment
would likely be
substantial. The Parks Service responded
that the extent of the
effects was unknown. Therein lay the controversy.
In its
response, the agency proposed to determine
the extent of the
effects by implementing the VMP and studying
its conse-
quences. As we have stated in Section I.C,
the absence of cur-
rently available information does not excuse
the Parks Service
from preparing an EIS when there is a reasonable
possibility
that such information can be obtained in
connection with the
preparatory process. The agency's response
is therefore not
sufficient to resolve the controversy. Accordingly,
the case
before us is controlled by Blue Mountains,
Idaho Sporting
Congress, and Sierra Club; and Greenpeace
Action is not to
the contrary. Here, preparation of an EIS
is mandated by the
"controversy," as well as by the "uncertainty,"
factor of the
intensity provision. 40 C.F.R. S 1508.27(b).
II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
[11] NPCA asks this court to "reverse the
District Court
_________________________________________________________________
17 Where there is conflict in the data, or
the evidence supports several
conflicting opinions, the agency may rely
upon the opinion of its expert.
Wetlands Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1121.
2442
and remand the case with instructions to
enjoin further imple-
mentation of the 1996 Vessel Management Plan
until a full
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared."
To determine
whether injunctive relief is appropriate,
"even in the context
of environmental litigation," we apply "the
traditional balance
of harms analysis." Forest Conservation Council
v. United
States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1496 (9th
Cir. 1995) (cita-
tions omitted); see also Amoco Prod. Co.
v. Village of Gam-
bell, 480 U.S. 531, 541, 542 (1987) (holding
that unless
Congress directed otherwise, "a court must
balance the com-
peting claims of injury" in determining whether
injunctive
relief is appropriate). "Environmental injury,
by its nature,
can seldom be adequately remedied by money
damages and
is often permanent or at least of long duration,
i.e., irrepara-
ble," Amoco Prod. Co., 480 U.S. at 545. When
the "proposed
project may significantly degrade some human
environmental
factor," injunctive relief is appropriate.
Alaska Wilderness
Recreation & Tourism Assoc. v. Morrison,
67 F.3d 723, 732.
See also Sierra Club, 843 F.2d at 1195; Save
the Yaak, 840
F.2d at 722.
[12] NPCA has made the requisite showing for
injunctive
relief. As we concluded in Section I, an
EIS is required. We
so held because of the significant adverse
impact on the envi-
ronment that might result from the implementation
of the
VMP. See Blue Mountains, 161 F.3d at 1216
(an EIS is
required of an agency in order that it explore,
more thor-
oughly than an EA, the environmental consequences
of a pro-
posed action whenever "substantial questions
are raised as to
whether a project may cause significant [environmental]
deg-
radation"). Where an EIS is required, allowing
a potentially
environmentally damaging project to proceed
prior to its prep-
aration runs contrary to the very purpose
of the statutory require-
ment.18 Here, the Parks Service has already
undertaken a 30%
_________________________________________________________________
18 We have recognized, nevertheless, that
in "unusual circumstances" an
injunction may be withheld, or, more likely,
limited in scope. See Forest
2443
increase in cruise-ship traffic preliminary
to a seventy-two
percent increase. The potential effects of
its action extend
beyond the endangered marine mammal population
to the rest
of the wildlife at Glacier Bay, as well as
the Park's air quality.
Kittiwakes, murrelet, eagles, sea otters,
seals, sea lions, por-
poises, and killer and minke whales, as well
as the better
known humpbacks, are affected. Until an EIS
is prepared and
the effects of increased vessel traffic on
the inhabitants and air
quality of Glacier Bay are properly examined,
there is a suffi-
cient possibility of environmental harm that
the VMP may not
be implemented.
Westours argues that the damage to its business
should be
considered when addressing injunctive relief,
that its financial
losses outweigh the potential damage to the
environment, and
that NPCA "is not entitled to an injunction
against the 32 sea-
sonal cruise ship entries" that the Parks
Service authorized for
the 2000-2004 seasons. As a general rule,
only the federal
government may be a defendant in a NEPA action.
Wetlands
Action Network, 222 F.3d at 1114. An exception
may be made
in the remedial phase of a case where the
contractual rights
of the applicant are affected by the proposed
remedy. See
Forest Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1495.
Here, Wes-
_________________________________________________________________
Conservation Council, 66 F.3d at 1496. Amoco
Production Co. is not to
the contrary. There, the Supreme Court rejected
a presumption of irrepara-
ble injury where an agency failed adequately
to investigate the conse-
quences of its proposed action, see Amoco
Prod. Co., 480 U.S. at 544-45:
it required courts to undertake the traditional
"balance of harms" analysis.
Id. at 545. We have fully weighed the competing
interests using our tradi-
tional equitable jurisdiction, and conclude
that injunctive relief is appro-
priate. Finally, in Sierra Club v. Marsh,
872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989),
then-Circuit Judge Breyer held that, because
NEPA is a purely procedural
statute, the requisite harm is the failure
to follow the appropriate proce-
dures. See id. at 500 (because NEPA can do
no more than require the
agency to produce and consider a proper EIS,
the harm that NEPA intends
to prevent is imposed when a decision to
which NEPA obligations attach
is made without the informed environmental
consideration that NEPA
requires). Marsh also justifies injunctive
relief in this case.
2444
tours was permitted to intervene, and appears
before us as a
party-defendant. Westours has asserted financial
damages
premised upon its contracts of carriage.
Its loss of anticipated
revenues, however, does not outweigh the
potential irrepara-
ble damage to the environment. Moreover,
neither Westours
nor those of its passengers who may be unable
to view Gla-
cier Bay at the time they originally planned
have cause to
claim surprise as a result of any injunction.
The plaintiffs filed
their objections to the plan approximately
five years ago and
just one year later sought an injunction.
If the passengers who
booked cruises on any "excess" tours were
not warned by
Westours of the pending litigation, their
interests were not
well served by that company. Thus, while
Westours has
standing to object to our grant of injunctive
relief, its evidence
fails to tilt the balance of harms in its
favor.
For the purposes of injunctive relief, we
may admit evi-
dence not before the district court to show
that an agency has
rectified a NEPA violation after the onset
of legal proceed-
ings. See Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck
, 222 F.3d
552, 560 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, Westours
asks us to consider
evidence addressing one aspect of NPCA's
complaint, the
humpback whale population. We will assume
that such evi-
dence is admissible. Westour's evidence shows
a short term
increase in the humpback whale population,
but completely
fails to address the other environmental
effects at issue here.
Nor does it address the deficiencies in the
Parks Service's EA
and FONSI. Accordingly, Westours's evidence
is insufficient
to dissuade us from granting injunctive relief.
Finally, we note that where the question of
injunctive relief
"raise[s] intensely factual issues," the
scope of the injunction
should be determined in the first instance
by the district court.
See Alaska Wilderness, 67 F.3d at 732. Here,
however, there
are no such intensely factual issues and
the scope of the
injunction to which NPCA is entitled is quite
plain. It is
appropriate, therefore, for us to decide
the injunction question
on this appeal.
2445
We direct the district court to enjoin the
further increases
in vessel traffic, and to return traffic
levels to their pre-1996
levels. We agree, however, with the Parks
Service's conten-
tion that "the current vessel regulations
are in important
respects more environmentally protective
than the 1984 regu-
lations they replaced." The NPCA does not
contend (and the
record would not support a finding) that
the 1996 VMP's
establishment of protected "whale waters"
in parts of Glacier
Bay or implementation of oil-spill response
plans pose an
actual or potential threat to the environment.
Accordingly,
there is no basis for enjoining that part
of Alternative Five.
Our order is limited to the thirty to seventy-two
percent
increase in the seasonal entry quota for
cruise ships, and the
eight percent increase for charter boats
and fifteen percent
increase for "private/pleasure" craft. All
entry quotas shall be
returned to the levels preceding the introduction
of Alterna-
tive Five. The other measures adopted by
the Parks Service in
its VMP shall remain in effect, and will
not be subject to the
injunction.
Notwithstanding the above, we recognize that
the issuance
of the mandate in this case may be delayed
for some period
of time as a result of the en banc procedures
that this court
follows, and that such delay may occur even
if we ultimately
decide not to grant a rehearing en banc.
We do not believe,
however, that a sufficient emergency exists
to warrant our
ordering that the injunction become effective
prior to the
completion of our customary process. Accordingly,
we cannot
know in advance how close to the opening
of this year's
cruising season the mandate will issue, or
even whether issu-
ance will be delayed until after the season
has already begun.
Nor can we determine how great may be the
practical disrup-
tion that would occur were last minute cancellation
of a sig-
nificant number of voyages required. Accordingly,
we leave
it to the district court to decide upon the
effective date of the
injunction it is ordered to issue, and, specifically,
to decide in
its informed discretion, and on the basis
of any evidence that
may be presented, whether the injunction
should take effect
2446
prior to the completion of this year's cruising
season, some-
time this September.
CONCLUSION
Much of the briefing and argument in this
appeal has
focused on the impact of the VMP on the imperilled
hump-
back whale population. However, a variety
of other non-
human inhabitants of the Park -- bald eagles,
kittiwakes,
murrelets, sea otters, harbor seals, Steller
sea lions, harbor and
Dall's porpoises, minke, and killer whales
-- are, as the EA
reflects, affected, and the already fragile
air quality is as well.
The existence of adverse effects is not uncertain.
What is
uncertain is the extent of the likely environmental
injury, and
the impact of the proposed mitigation measures.
The Parks
Service's own experts, whose integrity the
government com-
mended at oral argument, admitted both the
likelihood of cer-
tain harms to the environment of Glacier
Bay and their
uncertainty about the likelihood of other
harms. In giving
insufficient respect to their experts' evaluation
of harm,
declaring that no significant environmental
effects were
likely, and implementing the vessel traffic
increase without
complying with the requirements of NEPA,
the Parks Ser-
vice's decision-makers made a "clear error
of judgment."
Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S.
360, 378 (1989).
Glacier Bay Park is too precious an ecosystem
for the Parks
Service to ignore significant risks to its
diverse inhabitants
and its fragile atmosphere. We reverse the
decision below and
remand with instructions that the district
court issue an
injunction enjoining the granting of permits
to vessels pursu-
ant to the 1996 increase in vessel entry
quotas pending the
Parks Service's completion of an EIS. Permits
shall be limited
in number to those authorized prior to the
issuance of the EA,
the VMP, and the FONSI. The district court
shall provide in
its order for whatever specific actions it
deems necessary to
ensure that the number of cruise ships and
other vessels
authorized to enter Glacier Bay (pending
completion of an
2447
EIS) shall not exceed the number authorized
prior to the 1996
increase. It shall have the discretion, however,
to determine
the effective date of its injunction, including
whether the
order shall be made effective prior to the
completion of this
year's cruising season.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
2448 |