Yesterday I offered my congratulations to those dedicated, public-spirited activists who insisted that the National Park Service comply with environmental laws and manage Yosemite Valley and the Merced River corridor appropriately. http://www.wildwilderness.org/content/view/949/113/ 

For almost a decade, Friends of Yosemite Valley (FoYV) and Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth (MERG) have defended the public's interests against repeated assaults by the NPS. The courts have confirmed and reaffirmed the correctness of their position. With the decision handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, there can be no lingering doubt who was right and who was wrong.

The ramifications of this case are enormous. The Court in effect ruled that the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" of 1968 (WSRA) has teeth and that the English language meaning of the words of this act can not be ignored. The law can not be ignored by the NPS in relation to the Merced River. The law can not be ignored by other land management agencies in relation to other designated Wild and Scenic rivers.

Amongst other things the WSRA requires that the river corridor must be adequate protected, that the outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) must be preserved, that a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) be written and adhered to and that the kinds and amounts of public use that can be sustained without adversely impacting the resource be established, monitored and enforced.

As I said, the ramifications are enormous.

The wording of Circuit Judge Wardlaw's decision could not be more straight-forward and logically presented. Simply stated, Wardlaw ruled that land managers are required to follow the law. Then she went on to carefully explain the  requirements of the law. Judge Wardlaw's decision can be read at:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCABDF4F5FB55684882574180082FA48/$file/0715124.pdf

In addition to spelling out the need to adhere to correct procedure, Wardlaw spelled out with similar clarity the ongoing failure of the National Park Service to manage the Merced River / Yosemite Valley in keeping with the purposes and goals of the act.

FoYV and MERG had been making these claims for years. The judge confirmed them in these, her own, words:

[To illustrate the level of degradation already experienced in the Merced and maintained under the regime of interim limits proposed by NPS, we need look no further than the dozens of facilities and services operating within the river corridor, including but not limited to, the many swimming pools, tennis courts, mountain sports shops, restaurants, cafeterias, bars, snack stands and other food and beverage services, gift shops, general merchandise stores, an ice-skating rink, an amphitheater, a specialty gift shop, a camp store, an art activity center, rental facilities for bicycles and rafts, skis and other equipment, a golf course and a dining hall accommodating 70 people. Although recreation is an [outstanding remarkable value]ORV that must be protected and enhanced, see 16 U.S.C. § 1271, to be included as an ORV, according to NPS itself, a value must be (1) river-related or river dependant, and (2) rare, unique, or exemplary in a regional or national context. The multitude of facilities and services provided at the Merced certainly do not meet the mandatory criteria for inclusion as an ORV. NPS does not explain how maintaining such a status quo in the interim would protect or enhance the river's unique values as required under the WRSA.]

That was the good news. Now for the bad.

Heads should be made to roll within the Department of Interior. The National Park Service wasted years and spent millions of dollars in their effort to circumvent the WSRA.  The intensity with which they deliberately failed to adequately manage the resource while acting like thugs, bullies and liars in dealings with park defenders and the general public, is beyond forgiving. The NPS must put things right.

Then there's the matter of what is to become of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, now that land managers have been put on notice that the law can no longer be ignored or circumvented? This bedrock law has been made more powerful as a consequence of Judge Wardlaw's decision. We should all be cheering -- and yet I am worried.

All too often,  the Government's response to a good court ruling is to change the law.  On Thursday the judicial system strengthened environmental protections for Wild and Scenic Rivers. Will the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch now attempt to overturn or moot that decision?

Will the National Park Service and other land management agencies now demand that the WSRA be weakened.

Will The Wilderness Society or the National Parks and Conservation Association support the agencies in such an effort?

Will the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees come to the defense of Yosemite NP's supervisor, Michael Tollefson and of Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis --- or will we move on from here get down to the task of managing America's Wild and Scenic Rivers as they should have been managed all along?

Scott

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Scott Silver
Wild Wilderness
248 NW Wilmington Ave.
Bend, OR  97701

phone:       541-385-5261
e-mail:      ssilver@wildwilderness.org
Internet:    http://www.wildwilderness.org

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*Court Halts Yosemite National Park Construction Plans **PASEDENA, California*, March 28, 2008 (ENS) -

The National Park Service cannot proceed with more than $100 million in construction projects now on the drawing board for Yosemite National Park because the developments could illegally ruin the park's sensitive ecosystem, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Yosemite National Park covers nearly 1,200 square miles of mountainous terrain in the Sierra Nevada of central California.

In its decision Thursday, a three judge panel concludes that the park service's 2005 Revised Plan for Yosemite is illegal because it does not describe an actual level of visitor use that will not adversely impact the Merced River's Outstanding Remarkable Values as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and also required by a 2003 decision of the same court.

Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote that the Plan violates the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act because the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection framework is "reactionary and requires a response only after degradation has already occurred."

A concrete truck at work in Yosemite National Park.

(Photo courtesy Friends of Yosemite Valley)

The appeals court has addressed the same issues twice before, all three decisions relating to lawsuits brought by the Friends of Yosemite Valley and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government, MERG.

In this case, a lower court decision in favor of the environmental groups was appealed by Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne; National Park Service Regional Director of the Pacific West Region Jonathan Jarvis; and Michael Tollefson, Superintendent of Yosemite National Park. Their appeal was rejected.

The conflict stems from the Yosemite flood of 1997, which caused widespread damage to park infrastructure, including segments of Highway 140. Under the guise of emergency repairs, the park service decided to widen the canyon road to accommodate larger RVs and commercial buses.

Friends of Yosemite Valley's Bridget Kerr says, "The public was horrified by the blasting of 18,000 year old naturally formed rock walls, the cutting of oaks, and the filling in of the riparian river bank with rocks and concrete."

As a result, in 1999, the Sierra Club and Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government brought suit against the park service to stop the destruction in the canyon. "A portion of the canyon road remains untouched by this road-widening project only because it was stopped by the court," Kerr says.

In 2000, Friends of Yosemite Valley and MERG legally challenged the validity of the park service's Merced River Plan and the courts ruled in their favor twice. Today, a valid Merced River Plan is 18 years overdue and is now supposed to be completed next year.

Kerr says the current plan, struck down by both district and appellate courts, would destroy the park's environment. "The plan states plainly that when completed, air quality in Yosemite would be worse, noise levels would increase, and the amount of asphalted surface in Yosemite Valley would be greater," she says.

The plan calls for developed areas to expand beyond their existing footprint with new restaurant, hotel, and employee housing construction. Outside the Valley, large new parking areas would be built.

More than 500 roundtrip diesel shuttle buses would arrive and depart from a new 22 bay transit depot in Yosemite Valley, one bus every 1.4 minutes. Nearly half of the Valley's roads would be realigned, widened and upgraded; and while the plan removes a road from one meadow, it constructs another road along yet another meadow and wetland, Kerr explains.

"Most troubling," she says, "is the plan's blatantly commercial priorities. Affordable family-friendly tent-cabins and camping are being displaced by upscale resort-style lodging and RV sites. Picnics alongside the Merced River will be 'off limits' in favor of expanded restaurant seating."

Park officials have painted the environmental groups' resistance to these plans as denial of public access to the park. Kerr calls that stance "fear-mongering."

"This is really more about preserving everyone's access to the park than it is about denying access," said Kerr. "This is not a matter of keeping people out; it is about preserving the crown jewel of our National Park system."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-28-091.asp

*Should Yosemite be about people or profit?*

By Bridget McGinniss Kerr


Fresno Bee 11/30/07 21:52:18
The campaign to raise fear of being locked out of Yosemite by our National
Park Service is slickly backed by private funds and political might. This
spin befuddles Americans enough to make what's truly at stake in Yosemite
frustrating and nearly incomprehensible.

Despite having lost two federal court battles on visitor capacity issues,
the park has brought its refusal to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act in Yosemite before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- at taxpayer
expense.

It is not easy to sort through the controversial plans and misinformation of
a government agency that does not follow its mission or the laws designed to
protect public places.

But the main issue being debated in court could be distilled down to one
question: How many people can be along the Merced River in Yosemite Valley
at the same time?

National parks are the American commons. Yosemite's natural beauty has
something to offer everyone, no matter their philosophical bent, personality
type or income level. And our society is in trouble if we cannot preserve
the Incomparable Valley.

Apparently, our government feels it does not have to follow the protections
of the rivers act -- at least when it comes to managing capacity in Yosemite
Valley.

The Yosemite debate is often painted as esoteric, involving purists versus
the park service. However, there is nothing difficult to understand about a
management problem with a popular hiking destination and the death this
summer on Half Dome -- clearly the result of too many people in the same
place at the same time.

*Extreme gridlock*

Park managers imply that if they are forced to tackle capacity issues,
freedom to enjoy Yosemite would be lost. But managing capacity has more to
do with making sure that visitors can get continued equitable access than it
has to do with denying entry.

Dealing adequately with user capacity, as the park service is required to
do, would not entail pulling the welcome mat out from under visitors. Such a
scenario more accurately describes what can happen now on a holiday weekend
in Yosemite. When extreme gridlock occurs, the park can, and will, suddenly
turn visitors away.

Profiteers are pushing people from Yosemite. Most of the money (94%) for the
Yosemite Valley Plan is slated for construction; only 6% is earmarked for
ecological restoration. The only green part of the plan is our tax dollars
ushering profit for the park concessionaire.

Calling the Yosemite plan a restoration plan is an example of our government
using Orwellian euphemisms to cover the ugly truth. The 1997 flood was a
natural process. Legitimate infrastructure repairs have already been done.
These plans pave the way for further commercialization of your commons.

Yosemite was not designated a national park for its gift shops or high-end
accommodations; it was preserved because of its natural features. Rather
than polarizing national recreation and environmental groups or discrediting
citizens who ask questions, the park service needs to be working
meaningfully on this capacity puzzle.

Considering the complexity of Yosemite's issues, park managers ought to work
at finding common ground with people rather than partnering up with
corporations.

*More unity than disparity*

The local grass-roots organizations holding the park service accountable are
of varied political and economic backgrounds. They are just as concerned
with social equity as with protecting the Merced River's status as wild and
scenic. They volunteer their time to care for our commons. They understand
from experience that those who know Yosemite have much more unity than
disparity.

Couldn't we all agree that in Yosemite Valley we need to:

Protect what is there now.

Ecologically restore what we can.

Not destroy any more of what we still have.

If the park service were to follow these simple concepts, Yosemite could
offer timeless beauty for future generations, regardless of fickle
economics.

I'm grateful to be able to know Yosemite in all its seasons, but when near
fistfights ensue over parking spaces, it is difficult to ignore the problem.

As a local resident, I must report that our government blurs economics with
American freedom. This summer, Yosemite Valley was busier than it has been
in years -- in spite of grim theories floated proclaiming American families
homebody couch-potatoes with kids preferring GameBoys to open space and
trees.

I love Yosemite Valley, even when waterfalls are hushed, meadow grasses are
more gold than green and the Merced River has lost its exuberance. I just
wonder if people would feel so hassled by Yosemite if the park service would
stop making excuses and finally deal with the hard questions.
Bridget McGinniss Kerr, a 20 year resident of El Portal, is a freelance
writer and editor and a member of Friends of Yosemite Valley.

In Yosemite
Green Means Dollars Not Sense