## Facts

- Severe storms in early 1997 damaged Yosemite National Park infrastructure, including Highway 140 (the El Portal Road) along the Merced River canyon.
- The National Park Service (NPS) approved a reconstruction project involving road realignment and improvements such as curve widening and slope stabilization.
- The affected Merced River corridor is designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
- Sierra Club alleged the project would permanently change the canyon through blasting, grading, and widening, harming scenic, recreational, riparian, and habitat values and increasing traffic and development capacity.
- NPS proceeded on an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), rather than preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- Sierra Club sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under NEPA, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), the National Park Service Organic Act, and the APA.
- The case was submitted on cross-motions for summary judgment by Sierra Club, the federal defendants, and a contractor intervenor.

## Issues

1. Whether NPS’s reliance on an EA and FONSI, rather than preparing an EIS, complied with NEPA given the project’s potential for significant impacts in a protected river corridor.
2. Whether NPS satisfied WSRA’s mandate to protect and enhance the Merced River’s outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing condition when approving the project.
3. Whether the project unlawfully impaired park resources in violation of the National Park Service Organic Act.
4. Under the APA, whether NPS acted arbitrarily or capriciously and what limits applied to record-based judicial review and remedies.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Applying APA review, the court required that NPS show it considered relevant factors and provided a reasoned explanation supported by the administrative record.
- The court found deficiencies in NPS’s NEPA review, including inadequate treatment of cumulative impacts and alternatives in light of the project’s potential effects in a congressionally protected corridor.
- The court found NPS’s WSRA-specific evaluation incomplete and required additional analysis consistent with WSRA’s protective mandate.
- The court did not impose a categorical, permanent halt to all road work, but ordered further NEPA/WSRA-compliant review and imposed limitations on continued construction pending compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, a court sets aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; review is generally confined to the administrative record, with limited exceptions to confirm the agency considered relevant factors and explained its decision.
- NEPA requires an EIS for major federal action significantly affecting the environment; an EA and FONSI are permissible only if the agency takes a hard look and reasonably supports a no-significant-impact determination, including analysis of cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives.
- WSRA requires federal agencies to protect and enhance the values that led to a river’s designation and to avoid actions that would degrade those values; project approvals in designated corridors must be supported by analysis directed to those protected values.
- The Organic Act requires NPS to manage park resources to conserve them and avoid impairment for future generations; courts defer to agency judgments that are explained and record-supported but require a legally sufficient basis for non-impairment determinations.

## Conclusion

The court held that NPS could not proceed on its existing environmental analysis for the Yosemite El Portal Road project because NEPA and WSRA review were incomplete, and it ordered additional statutory compliance while allowing only limited further work subject to court-imposed conditions.


Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 69 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (E.D. Cal. 1999)