Full opinion text
WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The City of Sausalito, California, brings suit to enjoin the National Park Service from implementing its plans for the development and rehabilitation of Fort Baker, a former military base near Sausalito. Sau-salito contends that the National Park Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have violated numerous environmental and conservation-oriented statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347; the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1452-1465; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712; the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1371-1421h; the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. § 5951, et seq.; the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. § 17o; the National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1-18Í-3; the Act creating the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 16 U.S.C. § 460bb; and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. The magistrate judge, hearing the case by consent, granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding that Sausalito lacked standing to assert many of its claims, and that the other claims failed on the merits. We hold that Sausalito has standing to assert all of its claims. However, with the exception of its claims under the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we hold that Sausalito’s claims fail on the merits. I. Background Fort Baker (“the Fort” or “the site”) is located in Marin County, California, just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. The Fort lies in a 335-acre valley just inside the entrance to San Francisco Bay. It is bounded to the south and east by the shore of the Bay. The City of Sausalito is just north of the Fort, also on the shore of the Bay. Fort Baker was established as an Army post around the turn of the last century. In 1972, when Congress established the Golden Gate National Recreation Area as a unit of the National Park System, Fort Baker was included in the Recreation Area’s boundaries, with the expectation that it would be fully incorporated once it was no longer needed by the Army. See 16 U.S.C. § 460bb-2. The Army has been transferring portions of the site to the National Park Service (“Park Service”) since the mid-1980s. The Base Closure Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2687, mandated that Fort Baker be closed as an Army facility and completely transferred to the Park Service by 2001. Fort Baker has been described as “one of the most special gems” of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. It is praised for its serenity, hiking trails, wildlife, water access, and scenic views. Numerous species of wildlife and vegetation live at Fort Baker, including the endangered Mission Blue Butterfly, for which the Fort is one of its few remaining habitats. The site includes 183 acres of tideland, more than a mile of rocky shoreline, and a harbor at Horseshoe Bay that is protected by a ten-acre breakwater. Because of two dozen historic buildings arranged around the perimeter of a ten-acre “Parade Ground,” the Fort is classified as a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places. The Fort is also home to the Bay Area Discovery Museum, a United States Coast Guard Station, and the Presidio Yacht Club. In 1980, the Park Service drew up a General Management Plan (“GMP”) for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, including a discussion of the possible future uses of Fort Baker. Pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act, the GMP was accompanied by an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). The GMP approved the use of historic buildings at Fort Baker as a conference center, the removal of a wooden bulkhead to restore a beach, improvements to the landscape, and the construction of additional parking. In anticipation of the complete transfer of Fort Baker to its authority, the Park Service later sought to update the GMP’s proposals to account for critical developments that had occurred since 1980, such as the discovery of a federally listed endangered species at the site. The Park Service therefore prepared a new EIS, which is site-specific to Fort Baker. The Park Service initiated public scoping in 1997, followed by a period of public comments and meetings. In October 1998, the Park Service released its draft EIS. Thereafter, the Park Service conducted another public scoping, took public comments, and held an additional public meeting. After close of the review period in December 1998, the Park Service agreed to hold additional meetings with Sausalito to address its concerns about the draft EIS. A final EIS (“FEIS”) was released in October 1999. The FEIS details four alternatives for developing Fort Baker, and selects one of these as the plan it proposes to implement (“Fort Baker Plan” or “Plan”). In formulating these alternatives and selecting the Fort Baker Plan, the FEIS identifies the needs of the site, the purpose for the action, and the objectives the Park Service seeks to achieve. The FEIS identifies three major needs to which the proposed action responds. First, the FEIS recognizes a need to “arrest deterioration” of Fort Baker’s historic buildings and “allow for occupancy that will provide for their ongoing care.” Second, noting that “Fort Baker’s natural values are also exceptional,” the FEIS recognizes that “[pjrotection and enhancement of the natural resources of the site as it receives greater public use will require a comprehensive strategy to balance these needs.” Third, the FEIS notes that “existing facilities and features for visitors’ enjoyment for the site are minimal and inadequate” and that “[t]he Bay Area Discovery Museum [ ] requires additional space at Fort Baker for its program.... ” Based on these stated needs, the FEIS identifies five purposes of the proposed action. These purposes are to identify: (1) “the program and types of uses that would be accommodated in the historic buildings that would generate adequate revenue for building rehabilitation and preservation”; (2) “improvements to facilitate public uses, including new construction and removal of buildings, landscape treatments, trails, parking circulation, and locations and patterns of use”; (3) “waterfront improvements”; (4) “opportunities for habitat restoration”; and (5) “an approach to the protection, rehabilitation and maintenance of historic and natural resources.” Based on these needs and purposes, the FEIS proposes six objectives designed to “create a framework for considering and evaluating new uses and site improvements.” First, the proposed action should promote the Park Service’s mission by providing public programs and opportunities; protecting, restoring, and maintaining historic, cultural, and natural resources; and providing opportunities for education and interpretation to a diverse public constituency. Second, the proposed action should achieve both environmental and financial sustainability. The latter objective means that the proposed action should “[gjenerate a stable source of revenue that contributes to historic, cultural and natural resource preservation and interpretation including overall site and infrastructure costs.” Third, the proposed action should retain and complement the site’s special qualities by demonstrating a compelling reason for the program’s location at Fort Baker, and by providing waterfront access. Fourth, the proposed action should promote public access by providing for park user and program diversity and promoting public access to buildings and programs. Fifth, the proposed action should minimize environmental impacts, including impacts to the site, adjacent communities, other park sites, traffic, and parking. Sixth, the proposed action should retain and complement permanent site tenants and other Golden Gate National Recreation Area sites and programs, including the Bay Area Discovery Museum and the Coast Guard Station. Under the Fort Baker Plan chosen by the Park Service, a conference and retreat center, with a maximum of 350 guest rooms, will be established near the Parade Ground using both rehabilitated historic structures and new structures. Parking for a maximum of 455 cars will be provided in already disturbed areas. The Bay Area Discovery Museum will be expanded, and its parking facilities relocated and expanded. The Coast Guard is authorized to build a small addition to its existing facility. The Presidio Yacht Club’s facilities and marina will be opened to the public. A wooden bulkhead will be removed, and the beach will be restored. Forty-two acres of natural habitat, including twenty-three acres of existing Mission Blue Butterfly habitat, will be maintained, enhanced, or restored. Hiking trails throughout the site will be rehabilitated. The Plan also outlines various measures to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts. In June 2000, the Park Service issued the Record of Decision, which adopted the Fort Baker Plan, including its mitigation measures, as the proposed action for the site. Sausalito filed suit challenging the Plan in federal district court. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 211 F.Supp.2d 1175 (N.D.Cal.2002). The court held that Sausalito lacked standing to assert its claims under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act, and the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996. The court also held that Defendants had not violated the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, or the Act creating the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Sausalito timely appealed. We review the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court below correctly applied the relevant substantive law. See id. II. Standing We review a party’s standing de novo. Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 553 (9th Cir. 2003). The standing inquiry involves both Article III limitations and non-constitutional statutory limitations. See Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Ass’n v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2000). A. Article III Standing To satisfy Article III standing, Sausalito must demonstrate that “(1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). The nature of the Article III standing inquiry is not fundamentally changed by the fact that in many of its causes of action Sausalito asserts a “procedural,” rather than “substantive,” injury. We have recently stated, with respect to “procedural injury,” that to show a cognizable injury in fact, [a plaintiff] must allege ... that (1) the [agency] violated certain procedural rules; (2) these rules protect [a plaintiffs] concrete interests; and (3) it is reasonably probable that the challenged action will threaten their concrete interests. Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 341 F.3d 961, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2003). Whether substantive or procedural injury is alleged, a plaintiff must show a “concrete interest” that is threatened by the challenged action. That is, for Article III purposes, we may recognize a “procedural injury” when a procedural requirement has not been met, so long as the plaintiff also asserts a “concrete interest” that is threatened by the failure to comply with that requirement. For example, a cognizable procedural injury exists when a plaintiff alleges that a proper EIS has not been prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act when the plaintiff also alleges a “concrete” interest — such as an aesthetic or recreational interest — that is threatened by the proposed action. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 738, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) (aesthetic and recreational harms may amount to concrete injury-in-fact). For purposes of Article IIP standing, we do not require a plaintiff to demonstrate that a procedurally proper EIS will necessarily protect his or her concrete interest in the park. Under Citizens for Better Forestry, a cognizable procedural injury exists for Article III purposes when, because of a failure to honor a statutorily required procedure, it is “reasonably probable that the challenged action will threaten [a plaintiffs] concrete interests.” 341 F.3d at 969-70. As a municipality, Sausalito may not simply assert the particularized injuries to the “concrete interests” of its citizens on their behalf. See Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town of Parker, 776 F.2d 846, 848 (9th Cir.1985) (“[Cities] cannot sue as parens patriae because their power is derivative and not sovereign.”). Rather, as a municipality, Sausalito may sue to protect its own “proprietary interests” that might be “congruent” with those of its citizens. Id. The term “proprietary” is somewhat misleading, for a municipality’s cognizable interests are not confined to protection of its real and personal property. The “proprietary interests” that a municipality may sue to protect are as varied as a municipality’s responsibilities, powers, and assets. We have recognized that a municipality has an interest in, inter alia, its ability to enforce land-use and health regulations, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States, 921 F.2d 924, 928 (9th Cir.1990), and its powers of revenue collection and taxation, Colorado River, 776 F.2d at 848-49. A municipality also has a proprietary interest in protecting its natural resources from harm. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, 302 F.3d 928, 944 (9th Cir. 2002), amending 271 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2001). We have also found constitutionally sufficient injury to proprietary interests where “land management practices of federal land could affect adjacent [city]-owned land.” Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495, 1501 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sausalito has met its burden of establishing concrete “injury in fact” to its proprietary interests. Sausalito’s city manager, Dana Whitson, testified by declaration that: Sausalito expends millions of dollars annually on the maintenance and management of City lands, historic districts, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, marinas, libraries, meeting halls and other public facilities, and on the provision of public services including fire, police, shuttle bus, trash collection, parking and enforcement of land use plans and zoning regulations. Sausalito and its citizens and employees would be harmed by implementation of the Fort Baker Plan and the 2,700 daily visitors it would unleash in numerous significant respects including, but not limited to: congested streets, parks, parking lots, and sidewalks, increased crime, noise and trash, impaired and impeded use of streets for fire, police and other emergency services and for the City’s natural gas shuttle bus service, impaired air quality, particularly along major thoroughfares, lost property and sales tax revenue due to impaired vehicular movement and commerce rendering Sausalito less attractive to business. The Fort Baker Plan will harm Sau-salito’s tourism industry because added traffic congestion and crowded streets will destroy the City’s quiet, beauty, serenity and quaint and historic village character and attributes. The City’s tourism industry and dependent property and sales tax revenues would also suffer because the City’s marina, parks, trails and shoreline would be less attractive and ecologically healthy.... * * * A large proportion of tourist “traffic” into Sausalito arrives by ferry or bus. Due to its isolated location, hotel guests at the proposed Fort Baker conference center will access Sausalito by car and thereby increase vehicular congestion in the City’s quiet streets. The district court found that Whitson’s declaration sufficiently demonstrates Article III injury, stating that the “Fort Baker Plan would result in a detrimental increase in traffic and crowds in downtown Sausali-to, affecting City-owned streets as well as municipal management and public safety functions.” City of Sausalito, 211 F.Supp.2d at 1186. We agree. We add that Sausalito also asserts injury to its aesthetic appeal in that the congestion accompanying the Plan “will destroy the City’s quiet, beauty, serenity and quaint and historic village character and attributes.” This injury is cognizable as both an aesthetic injury and — because the City alleges that the aesthetic damage will erode its tax revenue — as an economic injury. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 183, 120 S.Ct. 693. Finally, the declaration asserts injury to Sausalito’s natural resources, citing an increase in “noise and trash,” “impaired air quality,” and harm to its “marina, parks, trails and shoreline.” We hold that each of the management, public safety, economic, aesthetic, and natural resource harms constitutes injury to Sausalito’s “proprietary” interests as a municipal entity. Applying the three Friends of the Earth factors, we hold that Sausalito has adequately claimed injury for Article III purposes. First, Sausalito has alleged harm to its proprietary interests with sufficient detail to state a “concrete and particularized” injury. Id. at 180, 120 S.Ct. 693. Second, the injuries are “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical!,]” and are “fairly traceable” to the implementation of the Fort Baker Plan. Id. The FEIS itself acknowledges that implementation of the Plan will result in an increase in local traffic, an increase in air pollutant emissions, and an incremental contribution to the cumulative noise environment. The FEIS thus finds that implementation of the Fort Baker Plan will result in known, predictable consequences that Sausalito identifies as concrete injury. Third, because Sausalito’s asserted injuries will not occur if the Plan is not implemented, Sausalito has alleged injury that can be redressed by a decision blocking implementation of the Plan. Id. at 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693. To put it in the terms we used in Citizens for Better Forestry, if the Plan is not implemented, the “reasonably probable” threat to Sausalito’s concrete proprietary interests will have been removed. 341 F.3d at 969. B. Non-constitutional Standing It is not enough, however, for a plaintiff to satisfy the constitutional standing requirements of Article III. A plaintiff must also satisfy the non-constitutional standing requirements of the statute under which he or she seeks to bring suit. This non-constitutional standing inquiry is not whether there is a “case or controversy” under Article III, and thus does not go to our subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, the nonconstitutional standing inquiry is whether a particular plaintiff has been granted a right to sue by the statute under which he or she brings suit. Once the Article III standing requirement is satisfied, this is a purely statutory inquiry. Some statutes grant standing narrowly. Under such statutes, some would-be plaintiffs with obvious, real-world interests in the outcome of a suit are nevertheless unable to sue because the statute has not conferred standing upon them. See, e.g., United Dairymen of Arizona v. Veneman, 279 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002) (under Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 352, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984), milk consumers have no standing to challenge milk market order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, even though the effect of the order is to increase retail milk prices). Other statutes grant standing very broadly, some as broadly as Article III permits. Under such statutes, would-be plaintiffs with small or minimal real-world interests are able to sue. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-89, 120 S.Ct. 693 (upholding standing for plaintiff suing under citizen-suit provision of the Clean Water Act). Statutes, however, rarely spell out in specific terms who does and does not have standing to sue. In difficult or uncertain cases, courts are left to infer the answer from various sources, including the purpose of the statute and background assumptions drawn from the common law. See Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 SUFFOLK U.L. REV. 881, 886 (1983). But the fundamental inquiry is straightforward, even if the answer is not always obvious: Does the statute in question confer a right to sue on the plaintiff who seeks to bring suit? If statutory standing is not explicitly provided in the text of a statute, a plaintiff challenging federal administrative action looks to Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which provides that any “person ... adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Under the APA, a “ ‘person’ includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(2). Interpreting the APA, the Supreme Court in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970), held that anyone “arguably within the zone of interests” protected by the statute under which he or she has asserted injury has standing to bring suit under that statute. The Court has instructed that the “zone of interests” test is to be construed generously, stating that the “test is not meant to be especially demanding,” and that a court should deny standing under the “zone of interest” test only “if the plaintiffs interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Clarke v. Secs. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388, 399, 107 S.Ct. 750, 93 L.Ed.2d 757 (1987); see also Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir.2004); Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 361 F.3d 1108, 1120-21 (9th Cir.2004). Specifically, “there need be no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.” Graham v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 149 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399-400, 107 S.Ct. 750). As a municipal corporation, Sausalito qualifies as a “person” under Section 10(a) of the APA. To determine whether Sausalito is within the zone of interests of the statutes under which it brings suit, we look “to the substantive provisions of the [statutes], the alleged violations of which serve as the gravamen of the complaint.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 175, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997). We are instructed by Clarke to understand these substantive provisions liberally. Thus, “APA plaintiffs need only show that their interests fall within the ‘general policy’ of the underlying statute, such that interpretations of the statute’s provisions or scope could directly affect them.” Graham, 149 F.3d at 1004 (quoting Nat’l Credit Union Admin, v. First Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 487-88, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) (further citations omitted)). Defendants have objected to statutory standing for five of the statutes under which Sausalito seeks to bring suit. Those statutes are the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Concessions Management Improvement Act, and the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act. We address these statutes in turn, and conclude that Sausali-to has standing under each of them. 1. Coastal Zone Management Act The purpose of the Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.” 16 U.S.C. § 1452(1). To accomplish these ends, the CZMA encourages the states to draw up “management plans” for their coastal zones and requires that “[e]ach Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs.” Id. § 1456(c)(1)(A). A federal agency ensures consistency of its proposed actions with state management programs by submitting a “consistency determination to the relevant State agency.” Id. § 1456(c)(1)(C); see also 15 C.F.R. § 930.36. After receipt of the consistency determination, the “State agency shall inform the Federal agency of its concurrence with or objection to the Federal agency’s consistency determination.” 15 C.F.R. § 930.41. Sausalito contends that the Park Service violated the CZMA because the Fort Baker Plan is not “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” with the approved state management program for the San Francisco Bay. 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(A). The district court denied standing under the CZMA, holding that the CZMA’s “zone of interests” extends only to “a state’s protection of their [sic] coastal zones, but not to a local entity’s quarrel with the state agency’s conclusion.... ” City of Sausalito, 211 F.Supp.2d at 1187. We disagree. It is true that local governments like the City of Sausalito are not charged with making or concurring in consistency determinations under the CZMA. But this does not mean that they do not have standing to challenge determinations made by others. If the only parties that could challenge a consistency determination were the agencies that had already made or concurred in that determination, there would effectively be no judicial review of CZMA compliance. There is no indication that the CZMA was intended by Congress to insulate from judicial review the actions of the agencies required to comply with the statute. We have, in the past, allowed parties other than those charged with making or concurring in a consistency determination to bring suit under the CZMA. See, e.g., Akiak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140, 1144-46 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing CZMA claims brought by Alaska Native communities); Northwest Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brennen, 958 F.2d 930, 936-37 (9th Cir.1992) (reviewing CZMA claims brought by environmental organizations). We hold that adversely affected local governments are within the “zone of interests” of the CZMA, as parties “adversely affected or aggrieved” by an improper consistency determination, and that Sausalito therefore has standing. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750. The CZMA explicitly states that it is “national policy” to “encourage the participation and cooperation of the public, state and local governments ... in carrying out the purposes of [the statute].” 16 U.S.C. § 1452(4) (emphasis added); see also id. § 1452(5) (It is “national policy” to “encourage coordination and cooperation with and among the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies ....”) (emphasis added). Further, we have previously indicated in dictum our view that local governments have standing to sue under the CZMA. In California v. Watt, 683 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.1982), rov’d on other grounds sub nom., Sec’y of the Interior v. California, 464 U.S. 312, 104 S.Ct. 656, 78 L.Ed.2d 496 (1984), we analyzed whether certain environmental groups had standing under the CZMA. We observed, “The CZMA issues the environmental groups sought to raise were identical to those raised by the State of California and the local governments, parties who clearly had standing.” Id. at 1271 (emphasis added). In Watt, we thus assumed without discussion that local governments could bring suit under the CZMA. As a local government that has asserted injury to the ecological health and attractiveness of its marina and shoreline, and consequent injury to its “proprietary interests,” Sausalito has adequately asserted that it comes within the “zone of interests” of the CZMA. See also City and County of San Francisco v. United States, 443 F.Supp. 1116, 1128 (N.D. Cal.1977) (San Francisco had standing under CZMA because “alleged injury affect[ed] the City’s interest in protecting the environmental integrity of those portions of the San Francisco Bay under its control and insuring the most effective use and management of this resource.”). 2. Marine Mammal Protection Act The Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”) prohibits “taking” a marine mammal without a permit. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1372, 1374. The statute defines “taking” as harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing a marine mammal, as well as attempting to do so. Id. § 1362(13), (18); 50 C.F.R. § 216.3. Sausalito contends that implementation of the Fort Baker Plan will cause the “taking” of sea lions and harbor seals under the MMPA, and that a permit is therefore required. The FEIS makes clear that the Park Service has not applied, and does not intend to apply, for a permit. Sausalito argues that it is explicitly granted standing under Section 104(d)(6) of the MMPA, which provides: “Any applicant for a permit, or any party opposed to such permit, may obtain judicial review of the terms and conditions of any permit issued by the Secretary under this section or of his refusal to issue such a permit.” 16 U.S.C. § 1374(d)(6). We held in Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d 821, 824-25 (9th Cir. 1986), that Section 104(d)(6) provides for judicial review of permits already issued and of the Secretary’s refusal to issue permits. However, Sausalito challenges neither the substantive terms of an already issued permit nor the refusal to issue a permit. Rather, it challenges the Park Service’s refusal to seek a permit at all. Sausalito’s challenge therefore does not come within the explicit grant of standing under Section 104(d)(6). Nonetheless, if Sausalito comes within the “zone of interests” of the MMPA, it has standing to seek an injunction requiring that a permit be obtained, or, in the absence of a permit, forbidding an activity that constitutes a “taking” of a marine mammal. The MMPA is intended to protect marine mammals so that they continue “to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part.” 16 U.S.C. § 1361(2). According to the MMPA: [MJarine mammals have proven themselves to be resources of great international significance, esthetic and recreational as well as economic, and it is the sense of the Congress that they should be protected and encouraged to develop to the greatest extent feasible commensurate with sound policies of resource management and that the primary objective of their management should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Whenever consistent with this primary objective, it should be the goal to obtain an optimum sustainable population keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat. Id. § 1361(6). Marine mammal conservation is thus the goal of the MMPA, and the statute explicitly recognizes that such conservation is a worthy objective because of “esthetic and recreational as well as economic” concerns. Implementation of the MMPA would be severely hampered if affected parties with conservationist, aesthetic, recreational, or economic interests in marine mammal protection were not allowed to bring suits challenging failures to apply for required permits. We believe that under the most reasonable interpretation of the “zone of interests” test, as liberally construed by the Court in Clarke, standing is granted to any party who would be “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the failure of a party to procure a permit that is required under the MMPA. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750. The FEIS for the Fort Baker Plan states that construction and increased use of the waterfront area of Fort Baker will result in marine mammals making “less frequent use of the area.” Because Sau-salito has asserted aesthetic, recreational, and economic interests tied to the presence of marine mammals in the water and along its shoreline, it is “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the failure of the Park Service to seek an MMPA permit. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750. We therefore hold that Sausalito has standing to sue to require the Park Service to apply for an MMPA permit before implementing the Fort Baker Plan. 3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) protects migratory birds. Its stated purpose is “to aid in the restoration of such birds in those parts of the United States adapted thereto where the same have become scarce or extinct, and also to regulate the introduction of American or foreign birds or animals in localities where they have not heretofore existed.” 16 U.S.C. § 701. The MBTA specifically forbids pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to take, capture or kill migratory birds without authorization from the Secretary of the Interior. Id. §§ 703, 704; 50 C.F.R. § 21.27. Sausalito contends that implementation of the Fort Baker Plan — specifically, construction activities, tree removal, and increased visitor usage — “may result in the foreseeable deaths of migratory birds” and may thereby violate the MBTA. It is clear from the FEIS that the Park Service has not sought, and does not intend to seek, authorization from the Secretary. On its face, the MBTA is a criminal statute. See id. §§ 706, 707(a)-(d). The statute does not specifically authorize civil injunctive suits, and it says nothing about who has standing to bring such a suit. However, this court, the D.C. Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit have decided civil in-junctive suits brought under the MBTA by animal welfare or environmental organizations. See Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Evans, 952 F.2d 297, 302-03 (9th Cir.1991); Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 882, 888 (D.C.Cir.2000); Newton County Wildlife Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 113 F.3d 110, 114-15 (8th Cir.1997). Although the necessary implication of these decisions is that a civil injunctive suit is authorized under the MBTA, and that the plaintiff organizations had standing to bring the suits, neither question was discussed in the opinions. We are bound to follow the implicit, but necessary, holding of our decision in Se attle Audubon Society. We therefore hold that anyone who is “adversely affected or aggrieved” by an agency action alleged to have violated the MBTA has standing to seek judicial review of that action. 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750. Because Sausalito asserts an interest in its ecological health and aesthetic appeal, a component of which is the presence of migratory birds, we hold that Sausalito has standing to challenge the Park Service’s proposed action under the MBTA. 4. Concessions Management Improvement Act The National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. § 5951 et seq. (“CMIA”), governs the award and administration of these concession contracts and “establish[es] a ... comprehensive concession management program for national parks.” Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 806, 123 S.Ct. 2026, 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003). “To make visits to national parks more enjoyable for the public, Congress authorized [the Park Service] to grant privileges, leases, and permits for the use of land for the accommodation of visitors. Such privileges, leases, and permits have become embodied in national parks concession contracts.” Id. at 805-06, 123 S.Ct. 2026 (internal quotations and citation omitted). In enacting the CMIA, Congress found: that the preservation and conservation of park resources and values requires that such public accommodations, facilities, and services as have to be provided within such units should be provided only under carefully controlled safeguards against unregulated and indiscriminate use, so that— (1) visitation will not unduly impair these resources and values; and (2) development of public accommodations, facilities, and services within such units can best be limited to locations that are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of such units. 16 U.S.C. § 5951(a). Further, Congress declared that it is congressional policy: that the development of public accommodations, facilities, and services in units of the National Park System shall be limited to those accommodations, facilities, and services that — • (1) are necessary and appropriate for public use and enjoyment of the unit of the National Park System in which they are located; and (2) are consistent to the highest practicable degree with the preservation and conservation of the resources and values of the unit. Id. § 5951(b). Sausalito contends that the conference center proposed for Fort Baker will bring development and commercialization that will impair Fort Baker’s natural resources and harm Sausalito through increased congestion. We do not require that Sausalito be a potential concessioner to have standing under the CMIA. It is sufficient that Sausalito assert injury to its “proprietary interest” that would result if the public accommodations, facilities, and services are constructed or provided in a manner Sau-salito contends is inconsistent with the CMIA. Cf. Wilderness Pub. Rights Fund v. Kleppe, 608 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir.1979) (resolving on the merits a suit by non-concessioner plaintiff brought under the federal statute superceded by the CMIA, Concessions Policy Act, formerly at 16 U.S.C. §§ 20-20g). As a party “adversely affected or aggrieved” by a concession that potentially violates the congressional policies underlying the CMIA, Sausalito is within the statute’s “zone of interests.” 5 U.S.C. § 702; see Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750; cf. Glacier Park Found. v. Watt, 663 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.1981) (plaintiff has standing under Concessions Policy Act because, inter alia, “its esthetic interests in preservation of the historical nature of Glacier Park are within the zone of interests protected by the statute.”). The Park Service contends that Sausali-to is not within the CMIA’s zone of interests because the CMIA does not regulate “the type of long-term lease for the retreat and conference center envisioned in the Fort Baker plan,” but this contention is unavailing. The regulations implementing the CMIA define a “concession contract” as a “binding written agreement between the Director and a concessioner entered under the authority of this part ... that authorizes the concessioner to provide certain visitor services within a park area under specified terms and conditions.” 36 C.F.R. § 51.3. The FEIS states that “[t]he conference and retreat center operator would be selected under existing [Park Service] authorities that provide for long-term agreements for rehabilitation and operation of park buildings.” The Park Service offers nothing to support its contention that the operation of the conference center, as described in the FEIS, does not qualify as a concession governed by the CMIA. 5. Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 Under the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (“Omnibus Act”), the Secretary of the Interior “is authorized where necessary and justified to make available employee housing, on or off the lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the [Park Service], and to rent or lease such housing to field employees of the [Park Service].... ” 16 U.S.C. § 17o(2). Such authorization is intended, inter alia, to help “eliminate unnecessary Government housing and [to] locate such housing as is required in a manner such that primary resource values are not impaired.” Id. § 17o(l)(E). The Omnibus Act directs that “[t]he Secretary may not utilize any lands for the purposes of providing field employee housing under this section which will impact primary resource values of the area or adversely affect the mission of the agency.” Id. § 17o(17)(A). Sausalito contends that the Fort Baker Plan violates section 17o(17)(A) of the Omnibus Act because the on-site housing of concession employees at the conference center will impair Fort Baker’s “primary resource values” of “scenic beauty and natural character.” Sausalito has asserted injury based on increased congestion and traffic caused, inter alia, by on-site employees’ trips into Sausalito. As “a party adversely affected or aggrieved” by on-site housing that potentially violates the policies Congress sought to further through the Omnibus Act, Sausalito is within the statute’s “zone of interests.” III. Statutory Duties We have thus held, or Defendants have conceded, that Sausalito has standing to sue under all the statutes it seeks to enforce. We now turn to the question of whether Defendants have violated, or will violate, the duties proscribed by those statutes. A. Standard of Review Because the statutes under which Sausalito seeks to challenge administrative action do not contain separate provisions for judicial review, our review is governed by the APA. See, e.g., Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569, 573 (9th Cir.1998) (review under the National Environmental Protection Act); Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1235-36 (9th Cir.2001) (review under the Endangered Species Act); Akiak, 213 F.3d at 1144 (review under the CZMA); Hill v. Norton, 275 F.3d 98, 103 (D.C.Cir.2001) (review under the MBTA); Ocean Advocates, 361 F.3d at 1118 (review under the MMPA). We will reverse agency action only if it is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Okanogan Highlands Alliance v. Williams, 236 F.3d 468, 471 (9th Cir.2000). An agency’s action is arbitrary and capricious if: the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). While we must be “searching and careful” in our inquiry, Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (internal quotations and citations omitted), we may not substitute our own judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). We “must uphold agency decisions so long as the agencies have ‘considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the factors found and the choices made.’ ” Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Washington Crab Prods., Inc. v. Mosbacher, 924 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir.1990) (further internal citations omitted)). Where “a court reviews an agency action involvpng] primarily issues of fact, and where analysis of the relevant documents requires a high level of technical expertise, we must defer to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies.” Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, 346 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.2003), amended by 352 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Ariz. Cattle, 273 F.3d at 1236 (“We are deferential to the agency’s expertise in situations ... where ‘resolution of the dispute involves primarily issues of fact.’ ”) (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 377-78, 109 S.Ct. 1851); Selkirk, 336 F.3d at 954 (“Disputes involving ‘primarily issues of fact’ must be resolved in favor of the expert agency so long as the agency’s decision is based on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors.”) (quoting Marsh, 490 U.S. at 377-78, 109 S.Ct. 1851). B. National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment....” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The EIS should “provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.1. Our review of an EIS is limited to a “rule of reason that asks whether an EIS contains a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences.” Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9th Cir.1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The key-question is whether the EIS’s “form, content and preparation foster both informed decisionmaking and informal public participation.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). If we are “satisfied that a proposing agency has taken a ‘hard look’ at a decision’s environmental consequences, the review is at an end.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Sausalito challenges the FEIS for the Fort Baker Plan in several respects. First, Sausalito contends that the FEIS fails to consider reasonable alternatives to the Plan. Second, it contends that the FEIS fails to consider the impacts of the Plan on traffic. Third, it contends that the FEIS fails to consider the “commercialization precedent” that implementation of the Plan will allegedly create. Fourth, it contends that the FEIS does not adequately discuss the effects of the Plan on wildlife. Fifth, it contends that the FEIS “fails to support its conclusion with scientific evidence.” Finally, it contends that the FEIS does not sufficiently disclose and discuss the cost-benefit analyses that the Park Service may have performed. We address these contentions in turn. We conclude, as to all of them, that the Park Service has taken the requisite “hard look.” 1. Alternatives NEPA provides that federal agencies must, to the fullest extent possible, “[s]tudy, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 U.S.C. § 4832(2)(E). The alternatives section is “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The EIS, however, “need not consider an infinite range of alternatives, only reasonable or feasible ones.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir.1997); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)-(c). The rule of reason “guides both the choice of alternatives as well as the extent to which the[EIS] must discuss each alternative.” Carmel, 123 F.3d at 1155. “ ‘[F]or alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, [the EIS must] briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.’ ” Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (emphasis added by the court)). The FEIS identifies and considers in detail four alternatives: (1) the Fort Baker Plan; (2) the “GMP Alternative”; (3) the “Office and Cultural Center Alternative”; and (4) “the No-Action Alternative.” During scoping and initial planning, the Park Service considered other alternatives that -were “initially thought to be viable or were suggested by the public,” but were not developed in further detail “because they were determined to be infeasible or did not fit within the Purpose and Need for the project.” The Park Service initially considered, but then rejected, a “maximum natural resource restoration” alternative. Other rejected alternatives discussed in the FEIS include use of the site as a charter or independent school, as a university campus, as a lodging facility, as an arts and education center, as a residential youth academy of environmental science and art, and as a fully operating military post. Sausalito contends that the Park Service should have identified and analyzed in detail more than the four alternatives considered. in the FEIS. Specifically, Sausalito contends that the FEIS should have evaluated in more detail alternatives that would have maximized natural resource restoration and that would have developed “noncommercial,” “low-impact,” or “non-urbanized” uses for the site. Sausalito’s strongest argument is that the Park Service should have explored the possibility of congressional funding for the refurbishment of Fort Baker so that revenue generation at the site would not be needed. Sausalito contends that if congressional funding had been obtained, the conference center would not have been an essential part of the Plan, and the alternatives Sausalito favors would have been feasible. As an initial matter, the Park Service contends that because Sausalito did not raise its concern about funding during public comments and in its many exchanges with the Park Service, it has not satisfied our requirement that those who challenge an EIS “bear a responsibility to structure their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the [parties’] position and contentions.” City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.1986) (internal quotation and citation omitted); cf. Morongo Band, 161 F.3d at 576 (implying that “the burden is on the party challenging the agency action to offer feasible alternatives.”). A party has participated in a sufficiently meaningful way when it has alerted the agency to its position and claims. See Angoon, 803 F.2d at 1022. Sausalito adequately made its concerns about funding at Fort Baker known to the Park Service throughout the public review and comment process. For example, in April 1999, Sausalito’s mayor wrote to Golden Gate National Recreation Area Superintendent Brian O’Neill: “[W]e cannot stress enough the desire of our City to have this project reduced to an appropriate scale.... To this end, we urge the Park Service to seek new funding, if necessary, to supplement the cost of rehabilitar tion in order to reduce the scope of the project.” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in December 1999, Sausalito’s mayor wrote to Regional Park Service Director John Reynolds expressing concern that while the reason the preferred alternative was selected was that it provides the economic wherewithal to support the needed improvements to historic buildings!,] [n]o other alternative for preservation of the buildings and/or reducing the costs of that effort was considered. Other possibilities include seeking multiple philanthropic entities to each sponsor one historic building for renovation and maintenance with selected options as to the building’s use. Such an alternative would minimize the size of, if not eliminate the need for, the retreat center. The Park Service was thus clearly alerted to Sausalito’s concerns that the Park Service’s pursuit of funding had been too limited. In the past we have cautioned that “even if an alternative requires ‘legislative action!,]’ this fact ‘does not automatically justify excluding it from an EIS.’” Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Reg. Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 815 (9th Cir.1987), overruled on other grounds by Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989) (quoting City of Angoon, 803 F.2d at 1021); see also Kilroy v. Ruckelshaus, 738 F.2d 1448, 1454 (9th Cir.1984) (“In some cases an alternative may be reasonable, and therefore required by NEPA to be discussed in the EIS, even though it requires legislative action to put it into effect.”). However, we have also noted that”[i]f an alternative requires congressional action, it will qualify for inclusion in an EIS only in very rare circumstances.” City of Angoon, 803 F.2d at 1022 n. 2. We identified one of these “very rare” circumstances in Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. United States Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800 (9th Cir.1999). There we held that an EIS prepared by the Forest Service should have considered the alternative of requesting funds from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, even though such funds might not have been available. See id. at 814. We noted that the alternative actually selected by the Forest Service in the EIS explicitly and frequently relied upon other “admittedly speculative funds” for financing, and we were “troubled by this selective willingness to rely upon the availability of funding sources beyond the Forest Service’s direct control.” Id. In this circumstance, we concluded that it would have been reasonable to consider seeking federal funds as an alternative. In assessing whether we confront another of those “very rare circumstances” here, we must understand the context in which the Park Service dealt with funding limitations. It is clear from the record that the lack of congressional funding available for rehabilitation of the historic structures at Fort Baker was a central concern of the Park Service throughout the development of the Fort Baker Plan. It is also clear from the administrative record that the lack of congressional funding was not merely “speculative.” Acting Park Service Superintendent B.J. Griffith explained the Park Service’s efforts at procuring congressional funds to Sausalito’s mayor in April 1999: During the planning effort for Fort Baker, we have pursued various funding sources to address this preservation challenge and ensure a smooth transition from military post to national park. We have presented our needs through Park Service budgeting channels, to relevant congressional committees, and to the Army in light of their responsibilities for current building maintenance and environmental clean-up. We have hosted the entire Congressional Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations at the site. We have discussed the project with the philanthropic community. While each of these groups is supportive of the conversion from military post to national park, and will contribute in some way to its realization, the majority of the preservation funds must come through the re-use concept itself. In our minds, the retreat and conference facility is the best avenue to achieve our primary goals: preservation of the site and public access. (Emphasis added.) Griffith reiterated these points one month later, stating, ‘With regard to funding opportunities for long-term rehabilitation and maintenance of the buildings at Fort Baker, Congress has made it clear that new uses will need to provide funds for this purpose.” The Park Service’s assessment of the limitations of congressional funding was discussed openly throughout the planning process. After scoping had closed in October 1997, Chief Park Service Planner for Fort Baker Nancy Hornor briefed a citizens’ advisory committee. She stated, “Financial sustainability was one of the important criteria for the site, [b]ecause we are not really anticipating that we are going to get a big influx of federal dollars to pay for the high cost of rehabilitating both the buildings and the infrastructure on the site.” In September 1998, before the same citizens’ group, Park Service Project Manager Ron Golem identified “the need for outside funding” as one of the “guiding principles for the implementation of this plan.” He explained: Particularly when we talk about building rehabilitation. We are going to be looking to the lessee of the conference and retreat center to really bring in the financing that is going to accomplish the rehabilitation of the historic resources. We are going to be looking to private philanthropy to hopefully contribute towards the open space and site improvements .... And really what we are going to be looking for Congress to do — and this is the feedback that we have gotten from them that this is how we should be doing it — is that there is a set of costs that we really can’t expect anybody else to take care of. And those are the costs that relate to the infrastructure, the basic utility systems, the roads. (Emphasis added.) The record also reflects the Park Service’s consistent attempts to work with members of Congress to secure whatever funding was available. Park Service mem-oranda indicate that as of March 1999, Congressman Jack Murtha was continuing his efforts “to secure military funding of the $12.5 million infrastructure requirement” and that various members of Congress, including members of the Military Construction Committee and the National Security Appropriations Subcommittee, had been “engaged” with respect to seeking funding. In July 1999, Congressman Ralph Regula, Chair of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the House Appropriations Committee, wrote to Superintendent O’Neill thanking him for “the briefings and information you provided to the subcommittee members regarding issues of importance to the park[.]” Regula specified that “[t]he subcommittee members seemed very excited about the potential for Fort Baker and we were, of course, please[d] to hear that Jack Murtha would pursue the $12 million needed for infrastructure repairs in the Defense bill.” However, Regula cautioned, “As you know, our Interior bill allocation fell $200 million below the enacted level and we are limiting new projects so that we can make a serious dent in backlog maintenance needs of the parks.” In 1999, the Park Service succeeded in procuring some funds from Congress when the Department of Defense’s Appropriations Bill contained five million dollars for infrastructure repair at Fort Baker. In 2000, the House Appropriations Committee approved another six million dollars for infrastructure improvements at Fort Baker. The record thus indicates that Park Service planners kept abreast of possible congressional funding sources, were well-informed as to the limitations of these sources, and were, on occasion, successful in obtaining funding. That the Park Service’s efforts were focused on appropriations that covered infrastructural improvements, and not on appropriations that would have indefinitely sustained the site, does not indicate that the Park Service did not diligently pursue congressional funding. On the contrary, as is made clear from Griffin’s and Golem’s comments, as well as other information in the record, the Park Service’s focus resulted from an informed understanding of Congress’s willingness to fund Fort Baker’s rehabilitation and a strategic choice about how best to secure whatever funding might be available. It was thus reasonable for the FEIS not to have explored in detail the “alternative” of additional congressional funding beyond what the Park Service had already secured. Sausalito may wish that Congress had been more receptive to the Park Service’s requests or that the Park Service could have devised a different and more effective strategy in seeking congressional funding. But this desire alone does not require us to conclude that the FEIS is inadequate. We therefore do not confront one of those “very rare circumstances” where an EIS is inadequate for not including the “alternative” of seeking fe