NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 76

the Forest Service neglected to consider expansion of existing ski areas,
which the Appeals Court found was reasonable to assume would have less
environmental impact than construction of an entirely new ski area. The
Appeals Court did acknowledge that the U.S. Forest Service was not required
to explore an unreasonably broad range of alternatives but it “should more
clearly articulate its goal,” thus providing limits to the breadth of alterna-
tives that must be considered. Specifically the court stated that a clear and
concise statement of purpose and need “will provide a clear standard by
which it can determine which alternatives are appropriate for investigation
and consideration in its EIS. In its present state, the EIS's discussion of alter-
natives to the proposed action is inadequate as a matter of law.” Based on the
failure to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives satisfying the purpose
and need statement, and other deficiencies in the EIS, the Court of Appeals
judged the EIS as inadequate.

3.2.2.5 City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1986)

This example involves timber harvesting and a log transfer facility on
Admiralty Island, near Juneau, Alaska, and the court's ruling not just of the
relationship of purpose and need with alternatives, but also on formulation
of the purpose and need statement. When the EIS for the project was chal-
lenged, the district court ruled that the U.S. Army Corps' purpose and need
of “safe, cost effective means of transferring timber harvested on [permit-
tee's] land to market” was too narrow, and the district court substituted a
broader “commercial timber harvesting” as the underlying need. Under this
revised, more general purpose and need statement, the district court ruled
that the EIS was defective because it failed to consider a reasonable range of
alternatives, including the alternative of a specific land exchange.
The district court's decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals based on the unjustified revision of the purpose and need state-
ment by the district court. The appeals court ruled the purpose and need
statement was the prerogative of the agency proposing the action, because
they had the most complete knowledge of the problems and opportuni-
ties within their jurisdiction and the technical expertise to understand the
issues. The court of appeals stated: “The preparation of [an EIS] necessarily
calls for judgment, and that judgment is the agency's.” Because the district
court's broader statement of purpose and need was rejected, the specific
land exchange alternatives did not meet the purpose and need and the EIS
was deemed procedurally acceptable. Specifically the appeals court stated:
“When the purpose is to accomplish one thing, it makes no sense to consider
alternative ways by which another thing might be achieved.” Thus in this
case, the courts affirmed that the agency proposing the action has wide lati-
tude and discretion in substantive matters, and the court will not substitute
its judgment or otherwise interfere where there is no indication of an arbi-
trary or capricious decision and procedures are followed.