[Awclist] [Fwd: RRFW Riverwire - Grand Canyon Litigation Update]

[Thomas Robey]

RRFW Riverwire -- GRAND CANYON LITIGATION UPDATE

September 9, 2007

 

With a lead off quote from Theodore Roosevelt, a legal reply was filed 
September 4, 2007, by representatives for a coalition of groups 
challenging the Grand Canyon National Park Colorado River Management Plan.

 

The Plan was challenged in Federal Court just days after being finalized 
in March, 2006. The groups challenging the park's commercialized 
motorized river plan include four nonprofit organizations: River Runners 
for Wilderness, Rock the Earth, Wilderness Watch, and Living Rivers.

 

Legal representation is being provided by Julia Olson of Wild Earth 
Advocates and Matthew Bishop of the Western Environmental Law Center.

 

The case is being heard by David G. Campbell, U.S. district court judge 
for the District of Arizona.

 

The case has four main issues, and each issue is argued in a number of 
ways.

 

River Runners for Wilderness encourages anyone interested to read the 
entire brief located here: **

*http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20070904.Document.Final_Reply_for_Summary_Judgement*

which includes links to a standing declaration from noted economist Dr. 
Donald Walls, a Material Facts document, and the Reply Brief.

 

This Riverwire covers only a few of the many arguments presented in this 
brief, fact sheet and declaration.

 

The first issue is that the Park Service "failed to comply with its duty 
to preserve the river corridor's wilderness character". In arguing this 
issue, the Plaintiffs have pointed out, that among other things, that 
National Park Service Management Plans and the Grand Canyon National 
Park General Management Plan all speak clearly about managing the 
Colorado River as wilderness. The Plaintiffs argue that the Management 
Plans contain requirements to manage the river as wilderness that the 
NPS must legally follow.

 

The second issue is that the Park Service "never determined that 
motorized uses (as opposed to non-motorized uses) and amounts of 
commercial services are "necessary" for the public to experience and 
enjoy the Colorado River". Here, the Plaintiffs note that motorized 
"commercial services account for the vast majority of the allocated 
commercial use" but "the Park Service does not cite to a single page in 
the FEIS or ROD where the Park Service made a specific finding that any 
amount of /motorized/ services are necessary."

 

The Plaintiffs also note "motorboats and helicopters cannot reasonably 
be deemed "primitive"" and that "The Park Service must limit the 
"diversity and range of recreational opportunities" to those that are 
consistent with preserving the river's values and cannot juxtapose 
demand for inappropriate commercial services as a need for those services."

The third issue is that Grand Canyon National Park failed to comply with 
the Organic Act. This is where the arguments about impairment to the 
resource, allocations and access are presented. After pointing out that 
this issue is not one of self guided users vs. concession passengers, 
the Plaintiffs note that one of the defendant interveners, the Grand 
Canyon River Outfitters Trade Association (GCROA), "vehemently opposes 
an equitable allocation of available use based upon relative demand, 
likely because it suspects the result would be a decrease in commercial 
services and an increase in noncommercial permits." 

 

This information is based, in part, on a 2002 internal GCROA memo on the 
river planning process discussing the need to have the support of the 
Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA). The GCPBA is also 
intervening against this litigation.

 

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the GCROA, this memo

*http://www.rrfw.org/article.php?file=20020405.Document.Grisham_to_Outfitters* 


is found in the Administrative Record for the case. This memo discusses 
ways to influence the GCPBA, how to profit from commercial passenger 
insurance, just how weak political support is to assist the 
concessionaires, and how the river concessionaires can have their "cake 
and eat it too".

 

The brief continues by challenging a 50-50 split in user days, and notes 
"the Park Service makes clear that measuring allocation in terms of user 
days is a disadvantage to noncommercial users and a financial boon for 
commercial companies." The Plaintiffs note that although the current 
plan utilizes user-days in making allocations, the NPS has conclusively 
stated that "Daily launches are probably the most important use measure 
for measuring impacts to visitor use and experience because launches (or 
trips) are the "units of use" that have encounters, occupy campsites, or 
influence the probability of encounters at attraction sites."

 

The fourth issue is that the NPS failed to comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act and has caused impairment to the resource with 
regards to natural quiet and wilderness character.

 

The September 4, 2007 brief will be followed by a response/ brief by the 
Park Service due October 3, 2007. Oral arguments may be scheduled for as 
soon as November.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RIVERWIRE is a free service to the community of river lovers from River 
Runners for Wilderness. To join, send an e-mail address to 
riverwire at rrfw.org and we'll add it to the RRFW RIVERWIRE e-mail alerts 
list.

 

Join RRFW's listserver to stay abreast of and participate in the latest 
river issues. It's as easy as sending a blank e-mail to 
Rafting_Grand_Canyon-subscribe at yahoogroups.com.

 

Check out RRFW's Rafting Grand Canyon Wiki for free information on 
Do-It-Yourself Grand Canyon rafting info 
http://www.rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Main_Page.

 

Check out new items and donate at the RRFW Store! RRFW is a non-profit 
project of Living Rivers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /archives/awclist/attachments/20070910/74cfdecd/attachment.htm