|
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.
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 here.
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
|
- Land management 
