|
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
SUMMARY
Reading the
entire complaint for the lawsuit by the Friends of
Yosemite Valley (FOYV) and Mariposans for Environmentally
Responsible Growth (MERG) against the National Park Service
and the Managers of Yosemite National Park can become a
tiresome and boring exercise. This summary is provided to
guide the reader to the essential parts of the Complaint,
while bypassing the uninteresting legalese portions.
JURISDICTION
-- Paragraphs 1 through 3 describe why this court has
jurisdiction. If the court did not have "Jurisdiction," the
suit would not be filed here.
INTRODUCTION
-- Paragraphs 4 through 9 describe the violations of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that the Plaintiffs allege
the defendants have committed. Includes citations of
pertinent case law that support the allegations.
PARTIES
-- Paragraphs 10 through 20 describe the Plaintiffs and
Defendants in the suit and explain why these Plaintiffs have
"Standing " to ring suit and the actions that cause specific
Defendants to be named.
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.
Paragraphs 28 through 46 provide detailed descriptions of
the failures to comply with the requirements of the WSRA,
embodied in the CMP/FEIS.
The Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Because the Valley Plan is supposed to "tier" to the River
Plan (this is acknowledged in the Valley Plan itself.), the
preparation and release of a ROD for the Valley Plan prior
to a legal CMP/FEIS for the Merced River -- as ordered by
the Court Decision of July 12, 1999 -- the present suit also
challenges the legality of the Yosemite Valley Plan (YVP).
Paragraphs 47 through 62 describe the violations of the WSRA
and the NEPA, embodied in the YVP.
Other Activities Impacting the Merced River
Paragraphs 63 and 64 describe actual activities by the Park
Service -- not just proposals in the CMP/FEIS or the YVP --
that affect the Merced River and violate the WSRA.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Here
(paragraphs 65 through 68) the Plaintiffs allege that the
NPS violated the July 12, 1999 Court Order to prepare an
adequate plan to protect the Wild and Scenic Merced
according to the requirements of the WSRA.
SECOND THROUGH SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
In
paragraphs 69 through 99, Plaintiffs describe in detail the
violations of the WSRA embodied in the CMP/FEIS and the YVP.
SEVENTH THROUGH THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
In
paragraphs 100 through 124, plaintiffs describe the various
violations of the NEPA embodied in the CMP/FEIS and the YVP.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
In
paragraphs 125 through 135, plaintiffs describe the
violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
embodied in the CMP/FEIS and the YVP.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue:
In
paragraphs 1 through 10 -- under the "Request for Judicial
relief -- plaintiffs request the Court to issue "Declaratory
Judgements" that the defendants violated the various
provisions of the WSRA, the NEPA, and the APAS.
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."
In
paragraph 12 -- under the "Request for Judicial relief --
plaintiffs request the Court to order payment: "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 in paragraph 13:
"For
such other and further relief as the court deems proper and
just."
Sixty-three
individuals and organizations supported this lawsuit as
signatories to the Amicus Brief for the Yosemite lawsuit.
|
