## Facts

- In 1980, the National Park Service (NPS) adopted a General Management Plan for Yosemite National Park, later amended by a 1992 Concession Services Plan, addressing park management and future development in broad terms.
- The 1980 plan and the 1992 plan were adopted after preparation of environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- After those plans, NPS undertook two major, park-wide planning efforts concerning new visitor lodging and employee housing, each involving an environmental impact statement and favoring a comprehensive approach rather than project-by-project decisionmaking.
- In January 1997, severe flooding in Yosemite Valley damaged the Yosemite Lodge area near the base of Yosemite Falls.
- The flood damaged or destroyed about half of the public lodging facilities and all employee housing in the Yosemite Lodge area; many cabins/buildings were located within the Merced River’s 100-year floodplain.
- NPS rapidly developed the “Yosemite Lodge Area Development Plan” to construct replacement public lodging and to make other structural changes in the Yosemite Lodge area (including changes affecting visitor access and circulation).
- NPS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Phase One of the plan, concluding that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required.
- Sierra Club challenged Phase One and sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that NPS’s EA/FONSI did not adequately analyze cumulative impacts when considered with other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions in Yosemite Valley and the park, and that NPS did not meaningfully evaluate reasonable alternatives (including options that would reduce environmental disturbance or shift development away from sensitive areas).
- Sierra Club also raised claims tied to the Merced River corridor under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA).
- The district court considered the motion on the administrative record and briefing, held oral argument, and conducted a site visit.

## Issues

1. Whether Sierra Club showed a likelihood of success on its claim that NPS violated NEPA by relying on an EA/FONSI for Phase One without adequately evaluating cumulative impacts and related actions, effectively treating a major redevelopment effort as an isolated project.
2. Whether Sierra Club showed a likelihood of success on its claim that NPS violated NEPA by failing to seriously consider reasonable alternatives to rebuilding new lodging and associated facilities in the Yosemite Lodge area after the 1997 flood.
3. Whether Sierra Club satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief (including irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest), and whether WSRA allegations supplied an independent basis for an injunction.

## Decision

- The court granted Sierra Club’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered Phase One of the Yosemite Lodge Area Development Plan halted pending lawful environmental review.
- The court found Sierra Club demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its NEPA claims, focusing on deficiencies in cumulative-impacts analysis and the range/seriousness of alternatives considered in the EA.
- The court determined that proceeding with construction before adequate NEPA review risked environmental harm that could not easily be undone once ground disturbance and related changes occurred.
- The balance of hardships favored Sierra Club because delaying construction to complete legally sufficient NEPA review was less harmful than allowing potentially unlawful work to proceed in a highly sensitive and heavily visited area.
- The public interest favored ensuring full compliance with environmental review obligations before altering Yosemite Valley resources.
- The court discussed WSRA-related concerns in the Merced River corridor but grounded the injunction primarily on NEPA shortcomings rather than a stand-alone WSRA procedural violation.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look at environmental consequences before committing to a course of action.
- An EA and FONSI are inadequate when the record indicates potentially significant effects, substantial uncertainty, or unresolved questions that warrant an EIS.
- NEPA requires analysis of cumulative impacts: the incremental effects of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
- NEPA review must consider connected and related actions; agencies may not avoid fuller review by slicing a broader program into smaller phases analyzed in isolation.
- NEPA requires meaningful consideration of reasonable alternatives, including options that would reduce environmental effects or avoid sensitive locations, particularly when changed conditions (such as a major flood) reopen questions about where and how to rebuild.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is warranted when a plaintiff shows likely success on the merits, a risk of irreparable environmental injury, and that equities and the public interest favor maintaining the status quo until legally sufficient review is completed.
- WSRA protections for designated river corridors may inform the environmental context, but an injunction in this case rested on NEPA’s procedural requirements and the inadequacy of the agency’s review.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined Phase One of NPS’s Yosemite Lodge Area Development Plan because Sierra Club showed a likelihood that NPS’s EA/FONSI violated NEPA by failing to adequately evaluate cumulative impacts with other Yosemite planning and by not seriously analyzing reasonable alternatives in the wake of the 1997 flood, and because the risk of irreversible environmental effects and the public interest in lawful environmental review warranted interim relief.


Sierra Club v. United States, 23 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (1998)