Opinion ID: 3051488
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requirement of a Single, Self-contained Plan

Text: [6] The district court did not err by faulting NPS for assuming that the 2000 CMP still existed and finding that the 2005 Revised Plan was deficient because, focusing only on the elements that were explicitly struck down in Yosemite I, it was 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 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. 6 Our decision in High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004), highlighted some of the problems with simply maintaining use at current levels. In examining compliance with the Wilderness Act, we stated that “[a]t best, when the Forest Service simply continued preexisting permit levels, it failed to balance the impact that that level of commercial activity was having on the wilderness character of the land. At worst, the Forest Service elevated recreational activity over the long-term preservation of the wilderness character of the land.” Id. at 647. FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE 3083 not a single, self-contained plan. See Friends of Yosemite, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1093-94. The WSRA requires a single, comprehensive plan that collectively addresses all the elements of the plan—both the “kinds” and “amounts” of permitted use—in an integrated manner. As Friends argue, NPS has simply tacked onto the 2000 CMP ten indicators and standards for the purposes of limiting the “amounts” of use, but has failed simultaneously to address the appropriate “kinds” of use. Moreover, before the district court, NPS, in a futile effort to correct this problem, attempted to rely on a December 2005 “Presentation Plan” which, according to NPS, combines all elements from the 2000 CMP and the 2005 Revised Plan that comprise the management plan for the Merced as administered by NPS. The district court properly rejected any such reliance because it was created after the approval of the 2005 Revised Plan, was not presented for public review as the revised plan and contradicted the 2005 Revised Plan which states that it is “the” final revised CMP. See id. at 1094 n.2. [7] In Yosemite II, we clarified that in Yosemite I, “we held . . . the entire Merced Wild and Scenic River [CMP] . . . invalid” and that “we did not otherwise uphold the [2000 CMP].” Yosemite II, 366 F.3d at 731 (internal quotation marks omitted). We thus concluded that, “[NPS] must prepare a new or revised CMP.” Id. Contrary to NPS’s assertion, in Yosemite II, we indicated that a single document covering all required elements must be produced. This does not mean that NPS is required to start from scratch with respect to each element of the 2000 CMP that was not explicitly found deficient or that it cannot incorporate parts of the 2000 CMP in preparing its new or revised plan. But, it is required to prepare a single plan, not issue supplemental volumes that simply crossreference thousands of pages of material from the 2000 CMP. The Secretarial Guidelines mandate such an interpretation of the WSRA, stating that the WSRA requires that a river’s comprehensive management plan state both “the kinds and amounts of public use which the river area can sustain without 3084 FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE impact to the values for which it was designated.” 47 Fed. Reg. at 39,458. NPS cannot, thus, address the “amounts” of use without also addressing the “kinds” of use. The two are inseparable. Further support comes from the plain meaning of “comprehensive,” which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “having the attribute of comprising or including much; of large content or scope.” NPS cites to Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20 (1952), for the proposition that the district court’s holding conflicts with principles of judicial review. In Idaho Power, the Supreme Court stated “that the function of the reviewing court ends when an error of law is laid bare. At that point the matter once more goes to the [agency] for reconsideration.” Id. There, the D.C. Circuit had entered a judgment and remanded the case to the agency for entry of an order in accordance with its opinion. Id. at 19. However, in response to a motion to clarify the judgment, the appellate court entered a new judgment and itself undertook to modify the agency’s order. Id. at 20 (“[T]he Court of Appeals entered a new judgment, stating that the order of the [agency] ‘be, and it is hereby, modified by striking therefrom paragraph (F) thereof, and that the order of the [agency] herein as thus modified be, and it is hereby, affirmed.’ ”). When we required NPS to prepare a revised or new CMP, we did not commit the same error as the D.C. Circuit—we did not assume the responsibility of revising the 2000 CMP itself, but rather remanded to the agency. The same holds true for the district court with respect to its decision on the crossmotions for summary judgment. Thus, NPS’s argument is without merit.