in relevant part, 535 F.3d 1058, 1079 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). 2. No-action alternative. Citizens’ contention that the Service failed to consider a valid no-action alternative, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d), is without merit. Because the Service was uncertain how it would ultimately implement the Regional Forester’s 2001 Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Decision, it constructed two no-action alternatives. Alternative 1 would have continued uses allowed under the Service’s most recent travel planning document, and Alternative 2 attempted to model future management actions that might be taken to implement the 2001 OHV Decision. We find nothing unreasonable about the Service’s formulation of these no-action alternatives. See Kilroy v. Ruckelshaus, 738 F.2d 1448, 1453-54 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). In fact, we find it ironic that, despite
holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment holding that if the trial court would have had no discretion to deny summary judgment on an alternative ground the appellate court can on that alternative ground sustain the order granting summary judgment holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record holding that by discussing both the status quo and an alternative reflecting a potential policy shift that might be implemented in light of recent legislative changes the agency satisfied the noaction alternative requirement holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record