Below is the summary of a lawsuit filed by MERG and others in an effort to protect the treasure that is Yosemite National Park.  It is followed by the complete text of the lawsuit

STATEMENT OF FACTS -- Paragraphs 21 through 27 describe the chronology of NPS and plaintiff's actions preceding the August 29, 2000 signing of a Record Of Decision (ROD). The present suit challenges the legality of the ROD and of the "Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (CMP/FEIS) for the Wild and Scenic Merced River.

In paragraph 11 -- under the "Request for Judicial relief -- plaintiffs request the Court to issue: "An injunction ordering Defendants to immediately prepare, after consultation with the public, and before any further site-specific activities occur or are authorized that could impact or alter the Wild and Scenic Merced River’s ORVs or free-flowing nature, a valid CMP, in accordance with WSRA and this Court’s Opinion and Order."

JURISDICTION

1. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises under the laws of the United States.

2. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Final agency action exists that is subject to this court’s review under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 ("APA"). This court may grant declaratory relief and additional relief, including an injunction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 705.

3. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), because the Merced River and Yosemite National Park are located in this judicial district and the agency actions challenged herein were made in this judicial district. Both plaintiffs have offices in this district and certain of their organizational members reside within this district.

INTRODUCTION

4. This lawsuit challenges the failure of defendants Bruce Babbitt, et al. ("NPS" or "Park Service") to prepare a legally adequate comprehensive management plan that protects and enhances the natural values of the Merced Wild and Scenic River in Yosemite National Park, in violation of the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii’s Opinion and Order of July 12, 1999, Sierra Club, et al. v. Babbitt, et al., 69 F. Supp.2d 1202 (E.D. Cal. 1999) ("Opinion and Order"). It also challenges the Park Service's decision to take actions adversely affecting the Merced River and its environs without fully addressing environmental impacts and prior to adopting a legal comprehensive management plan. Plaintiffs bring this action under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq. ("WSRA"); the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. ("NEPA"), and its implementing regulations; and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the June 2000 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (collectively the "CMP/FEIS" or "River Plan"), the August 9, 2000 Record of Decision implementing the CMP/FEIS ("CMP ROD"), the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (collectively the "VP/SEIS" or "Valley Plan") and the January 2001 Record of Decision implementing the VP/SEIS ("VP ROD").

5. Defendants failed to prepare and adopt a CMP that protects and enhances the Merced’s outstandingly remarkable values and its free-flowing nature. Defendants also failed to address in its CMP all issues necessary to comply with WSRA.

6. Defendants, in the CMP/FEIS, did not analyze and disclose all significant impacts; failed to study, analyze and develop a full range of reasonable alternatives; failed to analyze and disclose the cumulative effects of past, present and future development in Yosemite along the protected corridor of the Merced River; and failed to include a complete discussion of the environmental consequences of the impacts or effects to the Merced River’s "outstandingly remarkable values" and free-flowing nature.

7. Defendants approved actions in the ROD for the Valley Plan that will degrade the Merced's outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing nature in violation of WSRA, and these actions were not guided by a legally adequate River Plan.

8. In the Valley Plan, defendants similarly failed to comply with NEPA in the analysis of alternatives and environmental consequences. Additionally, the Valley Plan is inconsistent with the General Management Plan to which it purportedly tiers.

9. Plaintiffs bring this action to ensure that defendants comply with this Court’s July 12, 2000 Opinion and Order, with WSRA, and with NEPA, and to manage Yosemite National Park in a manner consistent with these laws, which are aimed at protecting and enhancing Yosemite’s magnificent natural resources for present and future generations.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE VALLEY ("Friends") is a grassroots, nonprofit membership organization founded in 1997. Friends is headquartered in Mariposa County, California, which contains Yosemite National Park. A primary goal of Friends is to protect and restore the wildness and natural systems of Yosemite through education, advocacy, and action. Friends also seeks to assure equitable treatment and public enjoyment for all socioeconomic levels of park visitors. Friends was founded in Yosemite Valley by conservationists and rock climbers, who first objected to the proposal to expand the Yosemite Lodge in Yosemite Valley at great public expense, and to the detriment of the Merced River and Yosemite Valley environment. Friends actively endeavors to protect Yosemite's natural environment from the adverse impacts of human development, and has been an active participant in the Yosemite planning process. Friends has submitted comments on Park planning documents, including the Draft CMP/FEIS and the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/EIS ("DVP"), attended numerous public hearings and petitioned appropriate officials of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior.

11. Members of Friends live and/or work in Mariposa County, and some members live and work within Yosemite National Park, the El Portal Administrative District, and other park areas. The group's members use and enjoy Yosemite National Park, including the Merced River corridor, as an important element of their Park experience, for a variety of activities, and for recreational, scientific, cultural, inspirational, educational, aesthetic and other purposes on a regular basis. These members intend to continue using and enjoying Yosemite frequently in the future. Friend’s members derive the aforementioned benefits through rock-climbing, swimming, nature study, contemplation, hiking, camping, bird-watching, wildlife observation, photography and generally surrounding themselves with the natural beauty of Yosemite, a natural wonder of the county in which they reside.

12. Plaintiff Mariposans for Environmentally Responsible Growth ("MERG") is a grassroots, nonprofit organization founded in 1989 and headquartered in Mariposa County, California, which contains Yosemite National Park. MERG was started by a group of concerned citizens who wanted to gather and disseminate information about an open pit, cyanide heap leach mine proposed for Mariposa County. Since 1989, MERG has continued to inform citizens and decision-makers about environmentally sensitive issues or projects in order to promote a sustainable high quality of life for present and future Mariposans. MERG’s major goal is the preservation of the rural character and natural environment of Mariposa County by providing information to assist decision-makers in making environmentally responsible choices as the community experiences growth and change. Among its many endeavors to protect the natural environment from adverse impacts caused by human development, MERG has been an active participant in the Yosemite planning process and many of its members helped accomplish the designation of the Merced River as a federally-listed Wild and Scenic River. MERG also commented on the Draft CMP/EIS and the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/EIS ("DVP"), attended numerous public hearings and petitioned appropriate officials of the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior.

13. Members of MERG live and/or work in Mariposa County. Some of MERG’s members are retired Yosemite National Park employees. The organization’s members use and enjoy Yosemite National Park, including the Merced River corridor as an important element of their Park experience, for a variety of activities, and for recreational, scientific, cultural, inspirational, educational, aesthetic and other purposes on a regular basis. These members intend to continue using and enjoying Yosemite frequently in the future. MERG’s members derive the aforementioned benefits through camping, hiking, bird-watching, wildlife observation, contemplation, photography and generally surrounding themselves with the natural beauty of Yosemite, a natural treasure of the county in which they reside. MERG’s members regularly use and enjoy the numerous values of the Park, including the Merced River corridor.

14. The recreational, scientific, cultural, inspirational, educational, aesthetic and other interests of Plaintiffs will be adversely and irreparably injured by Defendants’ failure to comply with this Court’s Order and Opinion, WSRA, and NEPA and its implementing regulations in preparing and issuing the CMP/FEIS and the VP/SEIS and their accompanying records of decision, unless the relief here requested is granted. These are actual, concrete injuries to plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ members that would be redressed by the relief sought herein. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

15. At the time Plaintiff filed its original complaint Defendant BRUCE BABBITT was the Secretary of the Interior. Defendant Babbitt has since been replaced by Gale Norton as the current Secretary of the Interior. Secretary Norton is the federal official now charged with the responsibility for the proper management of the National Park Service and Yosemite National Park and is herein sued in her official capacity as Secretary Babbitt's replacement. Former Secretary Babbitt directed the Park Service to accelerate its planning in order to complete the CMP/FEIS by the summer of 2000. Former Secretary Babbitt also directed the Park Service to prepare the Draft Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and submit it for public comment prior to completing a valid comprehensive management plan for the Merced River.

16. Defendant the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR administers the National Park Service.

17. Defendant the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE administers Yosemite National Park and is responsible for administering the Merced as a Wild and Scenic River in Yosemite National Park.

18. Defendant ROBERT STANTON is the Director of the National Park Service. Defendant Stanton is responsible for overseeing the administration of the National Parks, including Yosemite National Park, and for implementing the policies of the National Park Service. Defendant Stanton is herein sued in his official capacity.

19. Defendant JOHN REYNOLDS is the Western Regional Director of the National Park Service. As Western Regional Director, Defendant Reynolds participates directly in the planning processes for Yosemite National Park, including those at issue in this complaint. Defendant Reynolds signed the August 2000 CMP ROD and the January 2001 VP ROD, which are the subject of this action. Defendant Reynolds is herein sued in his official capacity.

20. Defendant DAVID A. MIHALIC is the Superintendent of Yosemite National Park. Defendant Mihalic is directly in charge of the operation of Yosemite National Park. Defendant Mihalic is herein sued in his official capacity.

21. In 1980, the Park Service issued a General Management Plan ("GMP") for Yosemite that directed future planning and management, in large part, by establishing basic principles of protection such as the protection of natural processes and included capacity limits for Yosemite Valley. The Park Service did not act to implement the GMP until the 1990s through a series of failed planning efforts. After one Park planning effort, the Yosemite Lodge Development Plan, was enjoined, the Secretary of the Interior decided to combine four segmented planning efforts into one plan to address actions in Yosemite Valley. This ultimately became the Valley Plan at issue in this lawsuit. The Park Service conducted scoping in preparation for the VP/SEIS in the winter of 1998.

22. Congress designated the Merced River as a Wild and Scenic River in 1987. 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (a) (62). The Park Service is responsible for administering 81 miles of the Merced Wild and Scenic River system, which flows through Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative District, including the headwaters of the Merced, its mainstem and its south fork. The United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have jurisdiction over the remainder of the Merced Wild and Scenic River, outside of Yosemite.

23. In 1996, as part of the Draft Yosemite Valley Housing Plan ("Draft Housing Plan")—one of the planning efforts that was incorporated into the Valley Plan, NPS determined classifications for the various river segments, determined the river’s ORVs and established boundaries for the river corridor. The main stem Merced River was classified wild in the Wilderness segment, scenic in the Valley and Gorge segments and recreational at the Impoundment and at El Portal. The South Fork Merced River was classified wild in the Wilderness and below Wawona, scenic in Wawona and recreational at the Impoundment. ORVs for the Main Stem and the South Fork include scientific, scenic, geologic processes/conditions, air quality, recreation, biological, cultural and hydrologic processes.

24. As one of its duties as the Merced’s administering agency, the Park Service is required to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the river. The comprehensive management plan should have been prepared within three full fiscal years after the Merced River’s designation as Wild and Scenic. However, the Park Service failed to comply with this requirement of WSRA.

25. In February 1999, MERG and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the Park Service challenging, in part, its failure to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the Merced and its decision to proceed with an El Portal Road project, which would adversely affect river values, in the absence of a comprehensive management plan. In July 1999, this Court found, in part, that the Park Service had illegally failed to prepare a comprehensive management plan and ordered it to prepare a valid comprehensive management plan pursuant to WSRA by July 12, 2000. This Court also found that the Park Service’s decision to plan for and proceed with the road project in the absence of a comprehensive management plan was illegal. The Court enjoined the portion of the road project on which the Park Service had not yet begun work, referred to as Segment D.

26. Based on a request from the Park Service, the Court extended the deadline for the Park Service to complete a valid comprehensive management plan to August 14, 2000.

27. The Park Service began scoping for the comprehensive management plan/EIS in June and July of 1999. The Draft CMP/EIS was released for public review on January 14, 2000. The public comment period closed on March 24, 2000. A mere three days later, on March 27, 2000, former Secretary Babbitt presented the Draft Valley Plan to the public and press in San Francisco. On April 7, 2000, without reconducting scoping in light of the Court's opinion and the Merced River planning process, NPS released for public review and comment the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement ("DVP/EIS" or "Draft Valley Plan"). The public comment period for the DVP/EIS closed on July 7, 2000

28. The availability of the CMP/FEIS was published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2000. On August 9, 2000, NPS signed the CMP ROD selecting and implementing alternative 2, the preferred alternative in the CMP/FEIS for the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Among other things, the CMP ROD purports to identify the environmentally preferred alternative in the EIS. However, the CMP ROD establishes a novel and incorrect legal framework for determining the environmentally preferred alternative and, based on that framework, identifies the wrong alternative as environmentally preferred. The identification of the wrong alternative misled the decisionmakers and the public as to the actual environmental impacts of the CMP and its alternatives.

29. In November 2000, the Park Service published the VP/SEIS. On December 29, 2000 the Park Service signed the ROD and published it in the Federal Register in January 2001. The VP ROD selected alternative 2 as the preferred alternative for the Yosemite Valley plan.

30. WSRA requires NPS to amend its 1980 General Management Plan ("GMP") to assure that activities on Park lands are consistent with WSRA and the Merced’s designation. The Park Service has never amended its GMP to assure that activities on Park lands comply with WSRA. (I-20)

31. The CMP/FEIS is supposed to be a "template against which future project implementation plans are judged to determine whether such projects will protect and enhance the values for which the Merced River was designated Wild and Scenic." (I-7) According to NPS, it is also supposed to "provide general direction and guidance for future management decisions." The CMP/FEIS does neither of these things. The River Plan does not predetermine levels of protection or provide the means to assess whether these levels of protection are being met, nor does it appropriately guide future management decisions to protect river values. Instead, decisions, such as the reconstruction of Segment D of the El Portal Road Project and a host of development actions encompassed in the Valley Plan guided the development of the CMP/FEIS. (I-20)

32. The preferred alternative of the CMP/FEIS, and the alternative selected in the CMP ROD, ("hereinafter CMP"), changes the classification of the river segment in Yosemite Valley from scenic to recreational. (I-9) However, since the time of the original classification in 1996, human development has actually been removed from this segment of the river due to a Park Service decision following the Merced’s high waters of 1997. The river segment in Yosemite Valley was properly classified in the 1996 Housing Plan as scenic and continues to meet or surpass WSRA’s definitional requirements of a scenic river. There is no rational basis for the reclassification of this segment.

33. The CMP’s boundaries throughout river segments are not linked to protecting and enhancing river values. Further, the CMP boundaries are not accurately mapped from the ordinary high water mark of the Merced. For example, the 1/4 mile measurement of the river boundary throughout the Valley segment is inaccurately mapped and the 1/8 mile river boundary along tributaries is removed. The maps shown in the River Plan are conceptual only; precise lines and boundaries have not been determined or verified. [II-7] The Park Service improperly defers establishing precise boundaries pursuant to WSRA. The narrow boundary (100-year floodplain) in the El Portal segment is not protective of river values. Additionally, the El Portal segment river boundary conflicts with the determinations of the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service that the river boundaries near El Portal should be the full ¼ mile on each side of the river to protect and enhance river values.

34. In the CMP/FEIS, the Park Service altered the outstandingly remarkable values ("ORVs") of the Merced River that it had previously determined in 1996. In some instances it completely eliminated ORVs from the CMP and in other instances ORVs have been reworded or altered in a manner that diminishes the values attributable to the river. The following are examples of the illegal alterations of ORVs from the 1996 determination, but they are not all inclusive. Air quality has been eliminated as an ORV of the river. Specific biological ORVs have been eliminated and replaced with general and vague narrative language. For example, in 1996, the Park Service determined that all segments of the Merced within the Park are an invaluable resource for baseline scientific study that constitutes an ORV. This ORV has been eliminated. As another example, Native American landscapes and specific cultural resources have been eliminated from the descriptions of ORVs, while European and Tourist features and landscapes have been added, including bridges, roads and other structural developments that impede the river’s natural flow. Further, NPS has fundamentally altered ORVs by improperly applying the determination that ORVs be "river-related" or "river-dependent." In 1996, ORVs addressed the whole river ecosystem. The revised ORVs in the CMP/FEIS narrowly define "river-related" or "river-dependent." Consequently, important species that depend on the river but do not live in the aquatic environment, riparian areas or meadows, have been eliminated as ORVs. For example, the biologic ORV now includes only aquatic or wetland species, and the scenic ORV has been limited to include only views seen directly from the river, rather than views of the entire river corridor from other vantage points. NPS has also improperly altered or eliminated ORVs along the river based on degradation to the resource caused by the Park’s own illegal activities, namely the El Portal Road Project, since the time that the Merced was designated wild and scenic. [II-11]

35. The Park Service purports to use a River Protection Overlay and twelve different management zones to provide management direction for protecting and enhancing ORVs and the free-flow of the river. Each of the action alternatives applies the same management zones, but in varying locations and of varying sizes. The placement of management zones within the river corridor, in addition to the size of the corridor and the classification of river segments, is the only difference among the action alternatives. The River Protection Overlay and the management zones do not provide management direction that will protect and enhance ORVs or protect the free-flow of the river. NPS has not provided any analysis or evidence to support its determination in every management zone for each alternative that river values will be protected and enhanced. Further, NPS has failed to provide any nexus between management zones and ORVs affected within those management zones for each alternative. The Park Service improperly failed to apply the management zones to any private lands within the river corridor.

36. The River Protection Overlay is a 100 to 150 foot zone along the Merced River. According to the CMP/FEIS, the River Protection Overlay is "intended as the primary mechanism to achieve the goals of the Merced River Plan," including the protection and enhancement of ORVs and preservation of the free-flow of the river. (II-24). But the River Protection Overlay allows non-essential facilities, such as riprap, levees, diversion walls, impoundments, bridges, bridge abutments, roads, campsites, buildings, utilities, and other structures, to be located within 100 to 150 feet of the river, where they are required for access to or across the river, for health and safety or for the maintenance of historic properties, and where it is impractical to locate them outside the River Protection Overlay. (II-25). The River Protection Overlay further allows both existing, reconstructed, repaired, replaced, relocated and new facilities of this nature within the overlay, even where they may degrade river values. Further, the Overlay lacks any management direction to preserve the free-flow of the river pursuant to WSRA.

37. The Management Zones specify activities and facilities that are allowable within the river corridor. The zones allow activities and facilities that will degrade ORVs or that may impair the free-flow of the river. The activities include but are not limited to: stock use, use of the High Sierra Camps, lodging, shopping and dining. The facilities include, but are not limited to: High Sierra Camps, vehicular roads-realigned or relocated, turnouts, bridges, paved trails, parking lots, shuttle bus stops, support facilities, lodges, food service and others.

38. The CMP/FEIS has no analysis of what levels of protection for ORVs existed when the river was designated in 1987, or exist today. Future levels of protection and enhancement based on a valid CMP/FEIS likewise are not quantified. There is no baseline account of present levels and location of development or other human impacts along the Merced River. While the management zones purport to limit the types of activities and types of facilities present in each area of the corridor, the zones do not predetermine the levels of these allowable activities that will protect and enhance the ORVs or free-flow of the river. The CMP fails to give primary emphasis to the values required by WSRA. The CMP gives more emphasis to recreation ORVs and non-ORVs, involving modern tourist landscape.

39. The Park Service inaccurately states in the CMP/FEIS that the River Plan provides a framework for road development or reconstruction. [I-35, I-39] However, the River Plan fails to provide management direction for road development or reconstruction that will assure protection and enhancement of ORVs and preservation of the free-flowing character of the river.

40. Related to user capacities, the Park Service elected to rely upon an unfinished five-year Visitor Experience Resource Protection framework ("VERP"). The CMP/FEIS improperly assumes, without any basis or analysis, that impacts on ORVs and the free-flow of the river are currently at an acceptable level. The Park Service states in the CMP/FEIS that the VERP framework will be the mechanism to develop criteria and indicators for assessing impacts to the resource. However, presently, the Park Service has no means of addressing and has never established user capacities for the Wild and Scenic Merced River, or assessed whether impacts are at an acceptable level to protect and enhance ORVs and preserve the river’s free-flow. (I-25)

41. The CMP/FEIS inadequately evaluates and discloses Environmental Consequences of the five alternatives. The Park Service failed to study and survey all species affected by the plan, habitat types, hydrologic processes and other necessary river values in order to adequately provide for their protection and enhancement. The CMP/FEIS lacks scientific bases to support its conclusions, management directions and alternative selections.

42. The cumulative, direct and indirect effects of the CMP’s boundary selection, ORV revisions and management direction on ORVs and the river’s free-flow were not properly evaluated or disclosed in the River Plan.

43. NPS failed to study, develop and describe all reasonable alternatives to the CMP/FEIS, despite its awareness that unresolved conflicts exist concerning alternative uses of the limited natural resources available in the Merced River corridor. Comments submitted to NPS during the public comment period on the River Plan reflect substantial public controversy about its potential environmental effects. Many members of the public commented on a range of alternatives not considered by NPS, yet NPS failed to revise the CMP/FEIS to include all reasonable alternatives.

44. Other than the "no action" alternative, NPS identified and considered four action alternatives to accomplish the project goals. None of the action alternatives recommend management actions to fully protect and enhance the river’s values. All of the action alternatives omit such reasonable steps as restoring the El Capitan moraine, removing remnant mosquito-abatement ditches, reducing certain air emissions to improve air quality, eliminating non-Park related recreation such as the Wawona golf course and swimming pools, removing the Merced Lake High Sierra Camp, eliminating lodging from Yosemite Valley and replacing it with camping removed by the Park Service after the flood, and reducing the need for support facilities and infrastructure such as housekeeping and food services and restoring specific areas along the Merced River.

45. NPS failed to consider a range of reasonable alternatives that would implement the purposes of a valid CMP, including those raised during the public comment period. NPS should have considered reasonable alternatives or any combination thereof that: limit visitor use rather than allow unlimited access in various management zones; remove development rather than allow additional development; eliminate asphalt and modern human structures; restore and enhance ORVs; restore and enhance all ORVs that have been degraded since the river was designated; addresses activities outside of the river corridor that may impact ORVs of the river; addresses land exchanges within or affecting the Merced River corridor and its ORVs or free-flowing nature.

46. NPS must also give a brief explanation for its rejection of alternatives considered but not evaluated.

47. The planning process for the VP/SEIS, rather than management aimed at protecting and enhancing the Merced's values, informed the decisions that were made in the River Plan. The Merced River Plan was crafted around the Valley Plan’s development agenda. Thus, the development in the Valley Plan relies on the zoning of the illegal River Plan. Because the River Plan was tailored for the Valley Plan and therefore does not adequately protect or enhance river values or the Merced's free-flowing character, the Valley Plan projects were not constricted by the direction of a legal management plan prepared in conformity with WSRA.

48. The Valley Plan has four stated specific purposes: 1) to restore, protect, and enhance the resources of Yosemite Valley; 2) to provide opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor experiences; 3) to reduce traffic congestion; and 4) to provide effective park operations, including employee housing, to meet the mission of the National Park Service. (1-5) The Park Service describes the Valley Plan as a combination of four distinct prior planning projects (Housing Plan, Valley Implementation Plan, Lodge Plan, Yosemite Falls Project) together in one comprehensive planning effort for Yosemite Valley. (1-3) The Park Service also describes the Valley Plan as a plan to implement the broad goals of the GMP. (1-5)

49. The Valley Plan includes four action alternatives and the no-action alternative. The main focus of each action alternative, including their titles, and the difference among them is the location of parking facilities and transportation patterns in the Park. The action alternatives also vary slightly by location and amounts of employee housing, visitor lodging, campground facilities and other secondary measures. None of these variances, other than the parking and transportation, amounts to a significant range of alternatives.

50. The Valley Plan did not consider a full range of reasonable alternatives that would address actions that fully comply with WSRA, provide low-cost accommodations for visitors, use capacity limits to reduce overcrowding rather than building additional infrastructure, and reducing the need for employee housing and support services by reducing the concessionaire services provided in Yosemite. There is no alternative that legally complies with WSRA.

51. In many instances, the Valley Plan's proposed actions are common across all alternatives, except for "no action." For instance, Segment D of the El Portal Road Project, removal of Cascades Diversion Dam, Visitor Use in Yosemite Valley, the Visitor Experience and Resource Protection study and preferred placement of stables at McCauley Meadows are identical across alternatives. Also, development projects in Foresta, Wawona and El Portal are essentially identical for each action alternative. Development projects in Yosemite Valley also are not readily distinguishable in terms of affected land.

52. In general, apart from those mentioned above, the preferred alternative includes numerous actions for construction of new infrastructure, conversion of existing infrastructure to other uses, increased services, relocation of certain infrastructure within the Park, establishment of management systems and some actions related to restoration. Overall, the preferred alternative increases the level of development and impacts in Yosemite. The development cost estimate for this alternative for visitor experience/facilities, transportation/circulation, administration/infrastructure and employee housing components is $413,241,000. Comparatively, the resource stewardship component cost estimate totals $28,449,000. Because of the extensive nature of the development projects, examples are provided below but do not constitute an exhaustive list.

53. The preferred alternative is entitled "Yosemite Village and Out-of Valley Parking: El Portal, Badger Pass, and Hazel Green or Foresta." As the title indicates, the heart of this alternative is the development of parking lots for day visitors outside of Yosemite Valley in three of the locations listed (about 1,470 total spaces). A 20-bay bus depot would be constructed in Yosemite Village to shuttle in visitors from the highway corridors and newly developed outlying parking areas, on tour and regional transit diesel buses. However, the out-of-Valley parking areas and shuttle services would not operate from November through March. Increased parking would also be constructed for day-visitor tour buses and day shuttle buses, some in highly valued resource areas. Overnight visitors and some day-use visitors would park at a new Yosemite Village parking lot, which includes the Camp 6 temporary parking lot within the Merced River corridor, which was illegally established without the required environmental analysis during the summer of 1999. In addition to newly developed parking lots, the preferred alternative calls for a transportation scheme that includes widening Segment D as the continuation of the El Portal Road Project (2-58); paving and widening, by up to 26 feet of roadway and shoulders, Southside Drive east of El Capitan Bridge to accommodate new two-way traffic circulation; building a West Valley ten-acre check station with a large pullout; constructing an entirely new portion of Northside Drive closer to the Merced River; and closing Northside Drive from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan crossover to daily automobile traffic and allow the paved road to be used as a bike path (2-77). The road will remain, but be converted to a multi-use, pedestrian, bicycle, maintenance and utility vehicle road. Each of these actions will, among other things, degrade the Merced’s ORVs and in some cases affect its free-flowing character. Through these actions and others, including the addition of miles of new asphalt pathways, the Valley Plan proposes to increase the paved asphalt surface of Yosemite Valley and the Merced River corridor.

54. The Valley Plan reduces the number of camping opportunities from pre-1997 levels, and increases the number of recreational vehicle hook-up campsites. The Valley Plan did not disclose that the Park Service removed approximately 40 percent of the camping from Yosemite Valley in 1997. Thus, the public did not have full information and an opportunity to comment on the difference between past and proposed camping levels. At the same time it reduces camping opportunities, the Valley Plan does not decrease the apparent amount of land used for hard sided lodging units. Indeed hotel priced lodging would expand into currently undeveloped areas. Modestly-priced tent cabins would decrease as even more expensive full-service units increase. Specifically, new lodging would be constructed in an undeveloped area at Yosemite Lodge and at Curry Village. New food and retail services would be developed at Yosemite Village in combination with the visitor transit center. Each of these actions will, among other things, degrade the Merced’s ORVs.

55. Infrastructure development and Park support functions would primarily be established in the Valley, El Portal, Wawona and Foresta with a heavy concentration in El Portal. The Valley Plan directs the development of employee housing for Park Service and concessioner or other Park partner employees, the majority of which is concentrated in the Valley, El Portal and Wawona respectively. For example, at El Portal (Hennessy's Ranch) high-density housing for employees, a pedestrian bridge and a new levee would be built within the River Protection Overlay near an alluvial bench of the Merced River. (v.1b,part 1, 4.2-11) Over seventy-eight percent of employee housing is for concessioner employees. Housing support facilities for employees would also be constructed in El Portal, including grocery, centers, office space, gas stations, swimming pools, dining areas and other commercial services. The Park proposes housing development on undisturbed land at Wawona, and expands the population of Foresta with employee housing.

56. The Valley Plan purports to implement the management direction from both the GMP and the River Plan, even though the GMP has never been amended for consistency with a legally valid River Plan. The GMP, for the first time in Yosemite history, set a maximum visitor use level and anticipated the need to limit visitor use further in the future. Further, WSRA requires, and the Park Service failed to address, use capacity in the planning to protect the river. In the Valley Plan, defendants rescind the GMP's 1980 maximum use limits and ignore WSRA's requirement to address capacity. Rather, the Valley Plan includes "expected visitor use in Yosemite Valley," but fails to set maximum limits. (v.1a, 2-20) It, like the River Plan, also defers any consideration of capacity limits to the results of a five-year VERP process. (v.1a, 2-21) Yet, the Valley Plan commits the Park to expand infrastructure to accommodate an unspecified increasing number of visitors before the VERP process has been completed.

57. The Valley Plan increases development within the River Protection Overlay. The Valley Plan includes road development, rip-rap, levees, bridges, and housing within the River Protection Overlay Zone established in the CMP. Within the larger protected river corridor, which is ordinarily ¼ mile, the Valley Plan includes new parking lots, visitor services, lodging facilities, employee housing, housing support facilities and visitor support facilities. Within and outside of the river corridor, the Valley Plan included development of previously undeveloped areas and/or areas presently in a relatively undisturbed state.

58. The Valley Plan addresses only some of the ORVs of the Merced River as set forth in the CMP. Notably, it fails to address air quality as an ORV that must be protected and enhanced. The VP/SEIS fails to adequately disclose and evaluate the adverse impacts on air quality associated with the regional transportation and shuttle bus systems this project institutes for Yosemite. The degradation of air quality adversely impacts humans, other animals, vegetation and the scenic ORV of the river. These impacts were not properly addressed or prevented. The Park Service is bound to protect and enhance air quality and to not take actions that will cause its degradation, as it has here.

59. In addition to relying upon a faulty CMP/FEIS, the Valley Plan's analysis of environmental consequences is inadequate for two fundamental reasons. First, the Valley Plan fails to describe the comprehensive project and its individual components in adequate detail so that it can be subjected to analysis. Second, the Valley Plan fails to use ORV-related studies and resource assessments to evaluate impacts. In many instances it defers surveys and studies to a later date.

60. For example, the impacts on hydrology, water quality or the floodplain of constructing new parking lots and employee housing in El Portal or the widening of Southside drive within the river corridor are not adequately disclosed or evaluated as to how the specific proposed actions will impact those systems. Like the CMP, the Valley Plan does not properly address the impacts on wetlands or soils. NPS did not delineate affected wetlands or conduct soil surveys in the whole project area, though defendants admit these resources will be impacted.

61. The VP/SEIS includes a cursory discussion of impacts to archaeological resources for two entire archaeological districts of unique and irreplacable national importance. Many of these resources are also ORVs. It predicts adverse impact to or destruction of as many as 38 known prehistoric sites in Yosemite Valley, adverse impact to or destruction of as many as 23 known sites in El Portal, but calls them "minor". Yet the FEIS avoids specific discussion of impacts except to note generally where they will occur. Also, entire areas of new construction, including entrance stations, parts of El Portal, Yosemite Valley campgrounds, Yosemite Village, Foresta, McCauley Meadow, Hazel Green are alternately not mentioned or not properly discussed.

62. Like the River Plan, the Valley similarly fails to fully disclose and evaluate the cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Valley Plan does not fully disclose or evaluate the impacts suffered during the El Portal Road project, such as the extensive rip-rap along the bank and bed of the Merced River and the Yosemite View Motel construction of 1997. While it discloses "some" impacts due to rip-rap, it fails to evaluate them. (v.1b, part 1, 4.2-8) Reasonably foreseeable future actions that were not properly discussed include, among other things, the Fischer land exchange, the private project of Hazel Green that would be enabled by construction of a road where no road presently exists by the proposed construction of the Hazel Green "out of Valley" parking area, and the Crane Flat redevelopment.

63. In 1999, NPS built a "temporary" parking lot of an estimated 10-20 acres within one-quarter mile of the Merced River at Camp 6. NPS graded and further developed this area, which had been identified as a "highly valued resource area." NPS prepared no analysis under NEPA of the site-specific or cumulative impacts of constructing this new parking lot. NPS also made no determination that the ORVs or free-flow of the river would be protected and enhanced by this activity. Rather, on June 24, 1999, NPS issued a "categorical exclusion" that the lot was excluded from public notice and comment and from any environmental analysis. In the Merced River CMP/FEIS, NPS allows the improvement of the parking lot to now include an asphalt surface, which will detract from the scenic beauty of the area, allow for confined run off of automobile wastes, and concentrate motorized vehicles in an area next to the river. And yet NPS has never considered, analyzed, or disclosed the site specific or cumulative impacts of the recently constructed parking lot or any improvements to it, in the CMP/FEIS or in any previous analysis.

64. The Park Service has repeatedly discharged sewage and other pollutants to the Merced River from its main sewer line related to construction activities and flow testing. The Park Service has also discharged sewage resulting from chronic sewer line obstructions caused by grease and trash. On July 27, 2000, the Park Service illegally discharged 200,000 gallons of sewage to the Merced River. On August 2, 2000, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 5-00-703. On October 24, 2000 another 2,500 gallon sewage spill occurred. On December 22, 2000, the Regional Board issued a $5,000 fine under the Timetable Order. The same day the fine was issued, there was an 800 gallon sewage spill at Wawona. The National Park Service is contesting the

right of the Regional Water Quality Board to issue the fine. The United Anglers of California also filed a lawsuit on October 16, 2000 under the Clean Water Act to compel the Park Service to comply with the Clean Water Act. The recurring spills to the river have been caused in large part by inadequate planning and preparation for construction and sewer line flow testing activities. The Park Service has repeatedly failed to implement necessary controls and programs to ensure that incompatible wastes that cause sewer line obstruction are not introduced to the treatment system. The Park Service has also failed to work cooperatively with state water pollution control agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

65. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 64, above.

66. This Court’s July 12, 1999 Opinion and Order required the Park Service to prepare and adopt a valid Comprehensive Management Plan for the Merced Wild and Scenic River pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1274(d). A valid CMP for the Merced River should, at a minimum, establish predetermined levels of protection and enhancement and pre-determined criteria for assessing impacts to the resource that will guide all future agency actions having an impact on the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor and its natural values.

67. The Park Service failed to prepare and adopt a valid CMP for the protection and enhancement of the Merced River as required and specified by this Court, because the current CMP fails among other respects to set standards for and guide future agency actions consistent with WSRA.

68. The Park Service failed to prepare and adopt a valid CMP prior to proceeding with other agency actions that will have an impact on the Merced Wild and Scenic River and its outstandingly remarkable values and free-flowing nature. Among other actions, the Park Service initiated planning for the Yosemite Valley Plan, and illegally released for public review and comment a Draft Valley Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, prior to completing the preparation and adoption of a valid and final CMP. The VP/SEIS illegally relies on the management direction in the CMP to guide agency actions and decisions affecting the Merced Wild and Scenic River. NPS’ actions violate this Court’s Opinion and Order and the APA.

69. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 68, above.

70. WSRA section 3 as amended requires NPS to "prepare a comprehensive management plan for such river segment to provide for the protection of river values. The plan shall address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices necessary or desirable to achieve the purposes of this act . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (d).

71. WSRA section 10 requires that the river area and adjacent lands be administered in a manner that protects and enhances the river’s values, giving primary emphasis to protecting its scenic, aesthetic, archeologic, historic and scientific features. 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a).

72. WSRA requires that NPS protect the Merced River’s free-flowing nature as defined in section 16. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271, 1286.

73. WSRA requires that NPS take necessary action respecting management policies and planning to ensure the protection of the Merced River’s outstandingly remarkable values in accordance with WSRA. 16 U.S.C. § 1283(a). NPS is required under WSRA to give particular attention to road construction and other similar activities, which might violate the Act. Id.

74. NPS has failed to prepare a comprehensive management plan for the Wild and Scenic Merced River that provides for the protection and enhancement of river values and that protects the Merced River’s free-flowing nature, in a manner consistent with the mandates and purposes of WSRA. Specifically, NPS has not given primary emphasis to protecting the scenic, aesthetic, archeologic, historic and scientific features of the Merced River. NPS has not established boundaries sufficiently to protect and enhance the ORVs. The CMP/FEIS also fails to adequately address resource protection, development of lands and facilities, user capacities, and other management practices in order to fulfill the purposes of WSRA. The Park Service’s failure to issue a final CMP and CMP ROD that complies with the requirements noted above is a violation of WSRA and the APA.

75. The Valley Plan, in implementing and conforming to the illegal CMP, is similarly illegal. As a consequence of the CMP’s failures, the Valley Plan approves actions that will degrade ORVs, especially scenic, aesthetic, archeologic, historic and scientific values, and will interfere with the free-flow of the Merced River. It also commits resources to the development of infrastructure and commercial services prior to addressing user capacities.

(Violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)

76. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 75, above.

77. NPS is required, under 16 U.S.C. § 1274 (a)(62)(A), to adopt revisions to the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan that will ensure that there shall be no development or use of the Park lands within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Unit that are inconsistent with WSRA and the designation of the Merced River as Wild and Scenic.

78. NPS has failed to develop such revisions to the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §1274 (a)(62)(A). Instead, NPS, in the CMP/FEIS and CMP ROD and VP/SEIS and VP ROD, has determined that the General Management Plan of 1980 is a companion document to the River Plan. [I-20] However, a valid River Plan must amend the General Management Plan where the two plans are inconsistent. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1274 (a)(62)(A), 1281(c).

79. The Park Service has violated WSRA and the APA by failing to revise or amend the General Management Plan so that it is consistent with a valid CMP for the Wild and Scenic Merced River and for relying upon provisions of the GMP in the Valley Plan without ensuring that the GMP complies with a legally valid River Plan.

(Violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act)

80. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 79, above.

81. WSRA required the Park Service to, within one year from the date of the Merced River’s designation as Wild and Scenic, establish river classifications for each segment of the Merced River within Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Unit. 16 U.S.C. § 1274(b).

82. WSRA requires that wild and scenic river segments be classified and administered as either wild, scenic or recreational. 16 U.S.C. § 1273(b).

83. A scenic river is one "free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads." 16 U.S.C. § 1273(b)(2). A recreational river is one that is "readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shoreline, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past." Id. at 1273(b)(3).

84. The Park Service established classifications for different segments of the Merced River in the 1996 Draft Housing Plan, including the Yosemite Valley segment of the river, which it appropriately classified as scenic.

85. In January 1997, after the Merced River segments had been classified by the Park Service, the waters of the Merced River rose substantially causing flooding over much of the Valley. This natural flooding process actually removed some human development from the Merced River watershed in Yosemite Valley. The Park Service removed additional debris and allegedly defunct lodging from the watershed after the 1997 high waters.

86. The Park Service, has arbitrarily altered the classification through Yosemite Valley, in the River Plan and CMP ROD, from scenic to recreational and has thereby failed to administer that segment of the river based on the classification it was given in 1996.

87. NPS’s reclassification of the Valley segment of the Merced Wild and Scenic River was arbitrary and capricious and violative of WSRA and the APA.

88. The Valley Plan’s adoption and application of these classifications in its analysis of the project is also illegal.

89. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 88, above.

90. WSRA section 10 requires that each component of the wild and scenic river system be administered in a manner that protects and enhances the river’s values, giving primary emphasis to protecting its scenic, aesthetic, archeologic, historic and scientific features. 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a).

91. In the 1996 Draft Housing Plan, NPS determined that the segments of the Merced River under its jurisdiction possessed a set of ORVs. NPS purported to apply the same set of ORVs in subsequent planning efforts, and argued in this court that it had identified the ORVs of the river.

92. NPS has arbitrarily and capriciously decided that the Merced River now no longer possesses the ORVs that the agency determined existed in 1996. Further, NPS has arbitrarily and capriciously decided that the Merced River now possesses new or varied ORVs that the agency never previously determined existed, and that are inconsistent with the congressional designation of the river as wild and scenic in 1987. The CMP/FEIS and CMP ROD violate WSRA and the APA for these reasons.

93. The Valley Plan’s adoption and reliance upon the CMP ORVs and the impacts of the project on these ORVs is inadequate because it fails to address the ORVs that were improperly eliminated from the CMP. The Valley Plan also allows and will lead to degradation of ORVs in violation of WSRA.

94. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 93, above.

95. WSRA section 12 requires the Park Service to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to eliminate or diminish pollution of waters of the Merced. 16 U.S.C. § 1283(c).

96. NPS must also protect and enhance the ORVs of the river. 16 U.S.C. 1281(a). In 1996, NPS determined that water quality was an ORV of the Merced River in all segments, with the exception of the waters near the impoundments.

97. NPS has illegally failed to cooperate with at least the Regional Water Quality Control Board because, among other things, NPS has failed to ensure that incompatible wastes that cause sewer line obstruction are not introduced into the sewage treatment system. The result of this failure to cooperate and other improper actions by NPS has been repeated and recurring sewage line obstructions that have resulted in illegal discharges of sewage and other materials into the Merced River. These discharges degrade water quality and otherwise harm the Merced River’s ORVs.

98. NPS has approved development and construction projects in the Valley Plan that will further illegally impact the water quality of the Merced. The Valley Plan does not adequately address NPS’ duty to cooperate with agencies charged with ensuring that water quality is protected.

99. NPS’ failure to cooperate with these agencies to eliminate or diminish pollution and its repeated failure to prevent the discharge of sewage and other pollutants into the Merced violate WSRA and the APA.

100. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 99, above.

101. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider all reasonable alternatives to their proposed actions. Agencies must "study, develop and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2) (e); 40 CFR § 1507.2. An EIS must inform decisionmakers and the public of reasonable alternatives that would minimize or avoid adverse impacts and those that will enhance the quality of the environment. 40 CFR § 1502.1. 40 CFR § 1502.14 requires an agency to explore all reasonable alternatives, and or alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, briefly describe the reasons for their being eliminated."

102. While preparing an EIS, NPS must not take interim actions which prejudice the ultimate decision by predetermining subsequent development or limiting alternatives in the EIS. 40 CFR § 1506.1. NPS prejudiced the ultimate decision in the CMP/FEIS and CMP ROD by limiting alternatives in the River Plan to those that would be consistent with the development in the Valley Plan.

103. The CMP/FEIS purports to consider five alternatives: a "no action" alternative and four action alternatives. All of the action alternatives allow degradation of ORVs or the free-flowing character of the river. None of the action alternatives fully protects and enhances river values and satisfies the purpose and need of a valid CMP.

104. The CMP/FEIS improperly failed to consider reasonable alternatives to achieve its stated goals, all in violation of NEPA and the APA.

105. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 104, above.

106. The VP/SEIS purports to consider five alternatives: a "no action" alternative and four action alternatives. Each of the action alternatives is based upon constructing a new parking and transportation circulation system. Many of the actions in each alternative are identical in scale and scope. NPS failed to consider and improperly excluded from discussion reasonable alternatives. None of the alternatives satisfies the purpose and need of the Valley Plan.

107. Each action alternative is illegally based on the invalid CMP and thereby allows degradation of ORVs or the free-flowing character of the river. None of the action alternatives fully protects and enhances river values.

108. The VP/SEIS omits, among others, reasonable alternatives such as those that: increase protections and enhancements of the Merced Wild and Scenic River’s ORV’s; implement resource-based capacity limits for Yosemite rather than adding parking, roadway and transit infrastructure; reducing the overall asphalt surface of Yosemite Valley; require vehicles to fit the size of existing roadways rather than expanding roadways; retain the existing size and configuration of Segment D; limit the size and fuel / emissions type of vehicles entering Yosemite; remove equal amounts of lodging from Yosemite Valley as camping; restore 40 percent of lodging areas to natural conditions; retain and rehabilitate a large proportion of the low-cost overnight units; remove a large proportion of the highest-cost overnight accommodations; retain the existing size of entrance stations; eliminate the land exchange of rare and sensitive land at El Portal to a developer; reduce the overall levels of commercial activity in Yosemite including full-service hotel accommodations, restaurants, and retail; not add additional development to areas outside Yosemite Valley.

109. The VP/SEIS improperly failed to consider reasonable alternatives to achieve its stated goals, all in violation of NEPA and the APA.

110. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 109, above.

110. 40 CFR § 1502.16 sets forth the requirements of the "Environmental Consequences" section of an EIS. It requires a complete discussion of, among other issues, direct and indirect effects and their significance, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between long term and short term maintenance and enhancement of the environment, and conflicts between other federal, regional, state, local and Indian tribe plans, policies and controls for the area of concern. 40 CFR § 1502.16.

111. NPS failed to include a complete discussion of impacts and effects to ORVs and the free-flowing character of the Merced from the activities allowed in the CMP/FEIS within the various management zones. Among other activities, the CMP/FEIS fails to consider, analyze, or disclose the site specific or cumulative impacts of the original construction and reasonably foreseeable improvement of a new parking lot at Camp 6 within one-quarter mile of the Merced River.

112. NPS failed to disclose the conflicts between its own planning for the Merced River in and around the El Portal Administrative site and that of the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

113. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 112, above.

114. NPS failed to include a complete discussion of impacts and effects to ORVs and the free-flowing character of the Merced from the VP/SEIS projects within the various management zones. NPS also failed to fully disclose and evaluate impacts on other natural and cultural resources from the construction of parking areas, new road widening, increased reliance on diesel bus mass transit systems in the Park, new entrance stations, new commercial facilities, new hotel construction and reconstruction, construction of new tracts of employee housing and other infrastructure, among other actions. NPS failed to fully disclose the socioeconomic effects that changes in lodging type and transportation and parking requirements will have on lower-income individuals and families. The Park Service cannot make a decision in the Valley Plan to implement a project of this magnitude, but defer a meaningful discussion of its impacts to a later date. The impacts analysis must inform the decision and thus must precede it rather than justify it post hoc.

115. Cumulative impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions are significantly missing. For example, NPS fails to adequately analyze the cumulative effects of past, currently proposed, and future changes in lodging on scenic resources, natural resources, cultural resources, and on socioeconomic factors of visitors. Also, the adverse impacts of the El Portal Road Project are not quantified and factored into the cumulative impacts analysis. The cumulative adverse effects of future actions are also vague and unquantified. Capacity limits, Yosemite Area Regional Transportation Services, air quality, socioeconomics, regional and other Park projects related to the Valley Plan, the Fischer Land Exchange and development at Hazel Green are all improperly deferred or not discussed in the VP/SEIS.

116. The Park Service’s failure to adequately describe the entire project in sufficient detail made it impossible for the public or the decision makers to fully understand the environmental impacts of the project. Additionally, the maps used to visually illustrate areas of impact are often inaccurate and not consistently correlated to natural resources, the river corridor or ORVs. The total acres of "restoration" versus "development" are also misleading and generally nonspecific as to impacts on the actual resource. For instance, in the Yosemite Lodge map, the "restoration" area is exaggerated.

117. Finally, the Valley Plan discusses undefined future mitigation measures for undefined future impacts as a means of circumventing a true evaluation of impacts. The discussion of mitigation of impacts is inadequate.

118. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 117, above.

119. NEPA requires NPS in its record of decision to identify the alternative in the EIS that "is considered to be environmentally preferable." 40 C.F.R. 1505.2(b). The Council on Environmental Quality defines the environmentally preferable alternative as the one that "causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment . . . and best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources."

120. Rather than implementing this straightforward guidance, NPS chose to implement the more general and permissive preface of NEPA to guide its deliberation of which of the action alternatives is environmentally preferable. Based on this erroneous approach, NPS then concluded that the preferred alternative – the one chosen by the CMP ROD – is also the environmentally preferred alternative. NPS' determination of the selected alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative misled the decisionmakers and the public as to the range of choices to be made and the actual impacts of the action alternatives. NPS' incorrect determination of the environmentally preferred alternative violates NEPA and the APA.

121. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 120, above.

122. The CEQ regulations require NPS to conduct public scoping prior to preparing an environmental impact statement for a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. In December 1998, NPS notified the public that it would conduct scoping for the proposal to develop a Valley Plan/EIS. The public, including Plaintiffs submitted comments in response to scoping. However, significant changes occurred after this initial scoping. This Court found the Park Service to be in violation of NEPA and WSRA for the El Portal Road Project and for failing to adopt a CMP that complied with WSRA. In light of that significant change in management direction for Yosemite Valley, the Park Service was required, after adoption of a legally valid River Plan, to reinitiate scoping on the proposed Valley Plan. The Park Service never properly conducted scoping on the VP/SEIS.

123. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 122, above.

124. NPS tiered the VP/SEIS to the 1980 GMP and the CMP/FEIS. The GMP is over twenty years old and any impacts analysis contained therein is outdated. It also has not been amended to comply with WSRA and a legally valid CMP. And as discussed above, the CMP/FEIS is illegal. Thus, the VP/SEIS cannot properly tier to these two documents.

125. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 124, above.

126. The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., entitles a party to seek judicial review of an agency action where a legal wrong is alleged and the party alleging the violation is adversely affected or aggrieved by the agency action. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) (A), a reviewing court shall hold unlawful and set aside an agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The Park Service acted illegally for all the reasons set forth above.

127. The Park Service acted illegally and in violation of the APA by approving and adopting the CMP/FEIS in violation of this Court’s Opinion and Order.

128. NPS acted illegally and in violation of the APA by failing to adopt a CMP for the Merced River and a Valley Plan that complies fully with WSRA.

129. NPS also acted illegally and in violation of the APA through its failure to developed revisions to the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan, to comply with 16 U.S.C. §§ 1274 (a)(62)(A), 1281(c) and assure that no development or use of park lands shall be undertaken that is inconsistent with the Wild and Scenic River Act designation of the Wild and Scenic River segments of the Merced River that are within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Unit.

130. NPS acted illegally and violated the APA by reclassifying a segment of the River from scenic to recreational.

131. NPS acted illegally and violated the APA by altering or eliminating ORVs from the Merced River and by failing to protect them.

132. NPS acted illegally and violated the APA by failing to cooperate with state water pollution control agencies to eliminate or diminish pollution and to protect and enhance water quality.

133. NPS acted illegally and violated the APA by failing to consider all reasonable alternatives and by prejudicing the selection of alternatives in the CMP/FEIS and in the VP/SEIS.

134. NPS acted illegally and violated the APA by failing to adequately disclose the full range of environmental consequences of the CMP in the FEIS and of the VP in the SEIS.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue:

1. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by failing to adopt a comprehensive management plan for the Merced River, pursuant to this Court’s Opinion and Order;

2. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by failing to adopt a comprehensive management plan for the Merced River, pursuant to WSRA;

3. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA in adopting the Valley Plan;

4. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by failing to develop revisions to the Yosemite National Park General Management Plan, to comply with 16 U.S.C. §§ 1274 (b), 1281(c), to assure that no development or use of park lands is undertaken that is inconsistent with the Wild and Scenic River Act designation of the Wild and Scenic River segments of the Merced River that are within the boundaries of Yosemite National Park and the El Portal Administrative Unit;

5. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by illegally, and arbitrarily and capriciously altering the classification of the Yosemite Valley segment of the Merced River;

6. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by illegally, and arbitrarily and capriciously altering and eliminating ORVs of the Merced River;

7. A declaratory judgment that defendants violated WSRA and the APA by illegally and arbitrarily and capriciously failing to cooperate with these agencies to eliminate or diminish pollution and its repeated failure to prevent the discharge of sewage and other pollutants into the Merced violate WSRA and the APA.

8. A declaratory judgment that the CMP/FEIS fails to comply with procedures and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370(d) and CEQ regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1517.7;

9. A declaratory judgment that the VP/SEIS fails to comply with procedures and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370(d) and CEQ regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1517.7;

10. A declaratory judgment that the actions of Defendants as set forth in this complaint are arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with the law, and without observance of procedures required by law, pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706;

11. An injunction ordering Defendants to immediately prepare, after consultation with the public, and before any further site-specific activities occur or are authorized that could impact or alter the Wild and Scenic Merced River’s ORVs or free-flowing nature, a valid CMP, in accordance with WSRA and this Court’s Opinion and Order.

12. For costs of suit herein, including attorney fees, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 or other authority; and

13. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper and just.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of March, 2001.

Julia A. Olson

Sharon E. Duggan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Friends of Yosemite Valley and MERG