Opinion ID: 3051488
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District Court Decisions on Remand

Text: On remand, on July 6, 2004, the district court ordered NPS to develop a “new or revised CMP” and to “comply with NEPA by issuing a supplemental EIS.” The district court also enjoined certain projects pending completion of the new or revised CMP. After a series of public scoping meetings, a draft of a revised CMP and SEIS was released for public review in January 2005. After approximately three months of public review, in June 2005, NPS issued its 2005 Revised Plan, a two-volume publication entitled, “Merced Wild and Scenic River—Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” (“2005 Revised Plan”). The Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE 3073 revised CMP was signed on July 25, 2005, adopting Alternative 2 from the SEIS. The 2005 Revised Plan states, as follows: [t]his revised plan will amend the existing Merced River Plan to address the two deficiencies identified by the Court . . . . This Revised Merced River Plan does not replace the Merced River Plan adopted in 2000, but corrects the deficiencies in its management elements. On November 11, 2005, Friends filed their complaint with the Eastern District of California, alleging five causes of actions against NPS. Friends challenged the 2005 Revised Plan under WSRA, NEPA, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and our prior orders. The district court, on July 19, 2006, granted in part and denied in part the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Scarlett, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1108-09 (E.D. Cal. 2006). The district court held that NPS failed to comply with our order that “[o]n remand, the NPS shall adopt specific limits on user capacity . . . [that] describe an actual level of visitor use that will not adversely impact the Merced’s ORVs.” Id. at 1098 (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the district court, “some sixteen years after [NPS] was required to create a [CMP] for the Merced River, [it] decide[d] that for approximately five years, it would like to experiment with implementing the VERP program as its primary means of addressing user capacity.” Id. NPS also failed to commit to the use of the VERP program for the long run, stating that “whether VERP will become permanent after five years is not known at this time.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, “[w]hat NPS has created in the VERP portion of the user capacity program in the 2005 Revised Plan is a tentative plan of uncertain duration which adopts temporary limits, which will apply for an unknown length of time.” Id. at 1100. As stated by the district court, the agency “has left itself the 3074 FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE option of deciding in five years to abandon its currently proposed method and proceed in an entirely different, as yet unidentified, manner. Under this scenario, there is no indication when, if ever, NPS will finally adopt a permanent primary method for addressing user capacity . . . .” Id. at 1099. Furthermore, despite providing for interim limits while NPS conducts field testing of the VERP indicators and standards, NPS’s interim limits, which are set to apply for a period of 5 years, “are simply the current physical capacity of the facilities in Yosemite Valley.” Id. The court also criticized VERP for being “reactive” in that it calls for management action only after environmental degradation has already occurred. Id. at 1100. The district court further found that the 2005 Revised Plan was deficient because “NPS has violated [the] WSRA by failing to adopt a single, self-contained [CMP] for the Merced River.” Id. at 1094. It found that “language from the Ninth Circuit indicates an intention that a single document be produced, covering everything.” Id. The court stated that although NPS is free to “us[e] parts[,] even very large parts,” of the 2000 CMP in developing “a whole new or revised plan,” it has “proceeded from the [incorrect] assumption that the 2000 [CMP] still exists.” Id. at 1093. The district court also held that the SEIS prepared in conjunction with the 2005 Revised Plan did not comply with the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4375, because it provided no true “no-action” alternative and because it lacked the required reasonable range of alternatives. Friends of Yosemite Valley, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1105-07; see 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d) (requiring “the alternative of no action”); id. § 1502.14(a) (requiring that the EIS “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated”). According to the district court, the SEIS improperly relied on elements of the 2000 CMP to describe the environmental baseline. Friends of Yosemite ValFRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE 3075 ley, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1105. The range of action alternatives was insufficient because each alternative is based on VERP, which the court had found inadequate to constitute the primary feature of a user capacity program as required by WSRA. Id. at 1106-07. Next, on November 3, 2006, the district court issued an opinion and order enjoining significant aspects of nine projects in the Merced River corridor until NPS develops a valid CMP. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 464 F. Supp. 2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2006). NPS appealed the district court’s November 3 decision on December 28, 2006. A stay pending the appeal of its injunction was granted on March 22, 2007 with respect to two of these projects. Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, No. CV F 00-6191 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 896154 (E.D. Cal. 2007). On March 28, 2007, the district court issued an order approving the parties’ stipulation regarding a completion date for a new CMP and EIS—on or before September 30, 2009. The district court also entered final judgment, which NPS appealed on April 24, 2007. NPS’s appeals from the district courts’ decisions are consolidated in the present case.