Ackerson Meadow provides habitat for hundreds of plant and animal species/NPS, Robb Hirsch
This week, Yosemite National Park grew by 400 acres, its largest expansion in nearly seven decades, with the donation of wetlands and meadow habitat along the park’s western boundary. The land, known as Ackerson Meadow, was donated through the cooperative efforts of the Trust for Public Land, Yosemite Conservancy, and the National Park Service.
“The generous donation of Ackerson Meadow will preserve critical meadow habitat that is home to a number of state and federally listed protected species,” Yosemite Superintendent Don Neubacher said in a release. “It’s a stunning open meadow surrounded by forest habitat, which supports a wide variety of flora and fauna species and offers new meadow experiences for park visitors. This meadow is a remarkable gift to the American people, coming at a historic time as we celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service.”
The Trust for Public Land purchased Ackerson Meadow from private owners for $2.3 million earlier this year and donated it Wednesday to the National Park Service to be part of Yosemite National Park. Funds to buy the property came from several major contributors to the Trust for Public Land, including a bequest of $1.53 million and $520,000 by the nonprofit Yosemite Conservancy, with additional support from National Park Trust and American Rivers.
“Donating the largest addition since 1949 to one of the world’s most famous parks is a great way to celebrate the 100th birthday of our National Park Service – and honor John Muir’s original vision for the park. We are delighted, and proud to make this gift to Yosemite, and the people of America,” Will Rogers, president of the Trust for Public Land, said in a release.
Historically, Ackerson Meadow has been used for cattle grazing, but the land provides critical habitat for hundreds of plant and animal species. At just 3 percent of Yosemite National Park’s area, meadows may be home to one-third of all of the plant species found in the park. Most of San Francisco’s water is filtered by Yosemite’s meadows, including Ackerson Meadow.
“The original Yosemite boundary plans of 1890 included Ackerson Meadow, so it is exciting to finally have this important place protected,” Yosemite Conservancy President Frank Dean said in a release. “The purchase supports the long-term health of the meadow and its wild inhabitants, and creates opportunities for visitors to experience a beautiful Sierra meadow.”
In recent decades, Yosemite Conservancy has funded restoration and protection of 10 meadows, such as Stoneman, Cook’s and Sentinel meadows in Yosemite Valley and Tuolumne Meadows in the high country.
Yosemite spokesman Scott Gediman told the Associated Press that this is the largest expansion of the park since 1949.
Comments
Yeah. But only because he can't. He is still a bottom feeder.
So once again we have a baseless accusation from Lee. Glad you agree.
What is your evidence of that? Where has he given any indication that he would like to reverse but won't because he can't. What is your evidence that he couldn't have it overturned? Pure baseless accusation. The facts - he believes in the rule of law. His objection was not the acquistion but rather the way it was done. I know rule of law means nothing to you progressives but it does to those of us that respect the Constitution and the laws that are generated according to it.
Thank you Rick B, the NPS policy stated by their officials is my understanding also. This is an important addition. Ackerson Meadow is one of the largest, if not the largest, meadows on the western boundary of the park. The Middle Fork of the Tuolumne Meadows flows through it, it is a beautiful place. Extremely important Great Gray Owl habitat along with other birds, animals etc. It is unfortunate that Congressman Bishop speaks out in such a negative and uniformed manner on this issue, it is great gift to all Americans.
What exactly was his "negative" speech? I don't know if he is right about the law or not. But, from the reporting I have seen, there has been nothing that suggests he was against this acquisition. Can you provide evidence that he was Ron?
(c) Boundary changes; donations; authority of Secretary
(1) Whenever the Secretary of the Interior determines that to do so will contribute to, and is necessary for, the proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management of an area of the national park system, he may, following timely notice in writing to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate of his intention to do so, and by publication of a revised boundary map or other description in the Federal Register,
(i) make minor revisions of the boundary of the area, and moneys appropriated from the fund shall be available for acquisition of any lands, waters, and interests therein added to the area by such boundary revision subject to such statutory limitations, if any, on methods of acquisition and appropriations thereof as may be specifically applicable to such area; and
(ii) acquire by donation, purchase with donated funds, transfer from any other Federal agency, or exchange, lands, waters, or interests therein adjacent to such area, except that in exercising his authority under this clause (ii) the Secretary may not alienate property administered as part of the national park system in order to acquire lands by exchange, the Secretary may not acquire property without the consent of the owner, and the Secretary may acquire property owned by a State or political subdivision thereof only by donation. Prior to making a determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the duly elected governing body of the county, city, town, or other jurisdiction or jurisdictions having primary taxing authority over the land or interest to be acquired as to the impacts of such proposed action, and he shall also take such steps as he may deem appropriate to advance local public awareness of the proposed action. Lands, waters, and interests therein acquired in accordance with this subsection shall be administered as part of the area to which they are added, subject to the laws and regulations applicable thereto.
(2) For the purposes of clause (i) of paragraph (1), in all cases except the case of technical boundary revisions (resulting from such causes as survey error or changed road alignments), the authority of the Secretary under such clause (i) shall apply only if each of the following conditions is met:
(A) The sum of the total acreage of lands, waters, and interests therein to be added to the area and the total such acreage to be deleted from the area is not more than 5 percent of the total Federal acreage authorized to be included in the area and is less than 200 acres in size.
(B) The acquisition, if any, is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as determined by the Secretary.
(C) The sum of the total appraised value of the lands, waters, and interests therein to be added to the area and the total appraised value of the lands, waters, and interests therein to be deleted from the area does not exceed $750,000.
(D) The proposed boundary revision is not an element of a more comprehensive boundary modification proposal.
(E) The proposed boundary has been subject to a public review and comment period.
(F) The Director of the National Park Service obtains written consent for the boundary modification from all property owners whose lands, waters, or interests therein, or a portion of whose lands, waters, or interests therein, will be added to or deleted from the area by the boundary modification.
(G) The lands abut other Federal lands administered by the Director of the National Park Service.
Minor boundary revisions involving only deletions of acreage owned by the Federal Government and administered by the National Park Service may be made only by Act of Congress.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/460l-9
Above is the language that gives the NPS authority to make minor boundary adjustments of less than 200 acres and less than $750,000. Section C-1-ii specifically states it applies to donated property.
Can anyone provide specific legislative language that give the NPS authority to undertake larger expansions on its own?
From what I have seen so far, Bishop is right about the NPS exceeding its authority and has not bashed the acquisition but rather, rightfully, the process.
My reading of this law is that the transfer is legal if the proposed acquistion was published in the Federal Register and the appropriate congressional committees were notified in writing. Was this done? Congressional approval does not seem to be needed here as Bishop alleges.
Ethical, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The only authorization granted in the law cited above is for acquisitions that meet all the requirements of A through G. A says it has to be less than 200 acres, C says less than $750,000. The law does require publication in the Register and notification for these properties. Nowhere here is the language that says the NPS can make larger acquistions. Perhaps they are given the authority somewhere else, but not here.
With all of the inclusions, exceptions, etc in this statute, my take is that Section 2, which places these limitations, is mandatory for the purposes of clause (i) of Paragraph 1. This donation is covered under clause (ii), which is less restrictive. In other words, I think clause (i) applies, not clause (ii). I'm not claiming that my interpretation is correct, only that is how I read it. In any case, this thing is highly complex and undoubtedly written by and for the benefit of lawyers.