[Awclist] GCPBA NEWSWIRE -- Group seeks to silence support of plan

[David Yeamans]

GCPBA Newswire - August 8, 2006 - RRFW Seeks To Silence Support of Park Plan

On August 7, 2006 - River Runners For Wilderness (RRFW) filed an 
opposition in Federal court to stop GCPBA (Grand Canyon Private 
Boaters Association) from intervening in the merits phase of RRFW's 
lawsuit against the current Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP).

Intervention would allow GCPBA full participation in all phases of 
the lawsuit. GCPBA asserts a right to participate as an intervener 
for the following reasons: In 2000, GCPBA challenged the National 
Park Service's failure to update its Colorado River Management Plan 
and to adjust the allocation of boating permits between commercial 
and private boaters in accordance with current demand, environmental 
conditions and other new information. GCPBA, the Park Service and 
GCROA (Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association), also an applicant 
for intervention, settled that case with an agreement by which NPS 
created the new CRMP and EIS now under challenge. GCPBA participated 
in the public comment process on the new CRMP and EIS, advocating a 
modified version of the Park's proposed preferred management plan 
(DEIS, 2004, Alt H).

In it's Record of Decision (ROD) the NPS implemented a modified 
alternative incorporating many of the suggestions proposed by both 
the GCPBA and GCROA. GCPBA thus has an interest in defending the 
decisions that NPS made in response to GCPBA's prior litigation and 
administrative involvement on a central issue in this litigation.

The opposition filed this past week contends that GCPBA (and its 
members) have no tangible, legally protectable, or concrete interest 
embodied in the CRMP.

The RRFW opposition dismissively states: "The only interest alleged 
by the GCPBA is in the NPS's allocation of boating permits and the 
remote chance that such interests could be impaired if the case is 
remanded to the agency to 'reconsider its decision to increase the 
allocation to private boaters.'"

It's the Board of GCPBA's position that this concession under-states 
the potential risk of adverse modification, since in its original 
filing, RRFW seeks a much broader set of remedies including a 
complete revision of the now in place plan. The RRFW legal action 
clearly could disturb the balance established in the CRMP, which 
embodies a proportionate distribution of launches and user-days, 
bringing the number of allocated user days to an equal level, and 
increasing private trip opportunity from 250 annual trips to 503.

Furthermore of importance to private boaters, while trying to block 
GCPBA intervention, RRFW's petition actually concedes its actions 
might result in a reduction in river access. Their petition states: 
"...the alleged interest and harm stems only from the NPS's 
reconsideration of its permit allocation system and the remote chance 
that, in so doing, it will decide to decrease the permit allocations 
to private boaters."

The RRFW filing casually dismisses the potential for private boaters 
to lose the gains incorporated in the new CRMP by characterizing the 
threat as only an "attenuated, generalized threat to GCPBA's alleged interest."

Ironically, the legal arguments RRFW makes in this recent motion 
could actually work against the long-term interests of the wilderness 
community, as a whole, in future litigation. Should the Court accept 
the way they construe the applicable law, it could be far more 
difficult for not just GCPBA -- but for RRFW itself and other 
organizations as well -- to intervene in future litigation of 
importance to the river and wilderness communities.

As a historical note, in the 2000 lawsuit, GCPBA vs Arnberger, et. 
al., GCPBA did not seek to block outfitter entry into the suit.

The complete RRFW filing may be found at: www.gcpba.org

                                                             ***

Background: RRFW and others filed this case (River Runners for 
Wilderness, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Joseph F. Alston, et al., 
Federal-Defendants.  CV-06-0894 PCT-DGC) on March 28, 2006 
challenging the National Park Service's (NPS) 2005 CRMP, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision (ROD) 
adopting the CRMP. The suit alleges that the new CRMP authorizes 
certain types, levels, and allocations of use that violate the NPS's 
statutory mandates, regulations, policies, and management plans. RRFW 
seeks a declaratory judgment that the CRMP violates a variety of 
Federal laws, NPS regulations, policies, and management plans. RRFW 
requests that the Court issue an injunction ordering the NPS to 
prepare a new CRMP and FEIS that remedies the violations of law 
articulated in the complaint.

For GCPBA - Rich Phillips

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website at: www.gcpba.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /archives/awclist/attachments/20060808/68919465/attachment.htm