Rock the Earth Continues Battle for Grand Canyon Wilderness

On September 4, 2007, legal representatives for a coalition of groups challenging the Grand Canyon National Park Colorado River Management Plan filed reply briefs in the U.S. district court for the District of Arizona. The Plan was challenged just days after the Plan was finalized in March 2006. The groups challenging the park's commercialized motorized river plan include four nonprofit organizations: Rock the Earth, River Runners for Wilderness, Wilderness Watch, and Living Rivers. A copy of the full 59-page brief can be read in its entirety here.

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

Among the objections at 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, the National Park Service’s Management Plan and the Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan, which carry the force of law, all speak clearly about managing the Colorado River as wilderness.

The second issue is that the Park Service has never determined that motorized uses (as opposed to non-motorized uses) and the amount of commercial services permitted in the plan are “necessary” for the public to experience and enjoy the Colorado River. Motorized commercial services account for the vast majority of the allocated commercial use, but the Park Service does not cite to any specific finding that any amount of motorized services are necessary. In our brief, we argued that motorboats and helicopters cannot reasonably be deemed “primitive,” and that the Park Service must limit the diversity and range of recreational opportunities to just those that are consistent with preserving the river’s wilderness values--demand for inappropriate commercial services should not be erroneously considered a need for those services.

The third issue is that the Park Service, in creating the new Management Plan, has failed to comply with the Organic Act. This is where the arguments about allocations and access are presented. In challenging the NPS’s methodology for allocation, in which the NPS utilizes “user days” to allocate access, we rely on NPS documents and argued that the more appropriate method would be to utilize “daily launches,” which, according to the NPS themselves, more accurately reflects usage of the River and the impacts that arise from that usage.

The fourth issue is that the NPS has failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and has caused impairment to the River corridor by creating a plan that fails to protect natural quiet and the wilderness character of the corridor.

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

As is the case with all litigation matters, our expenses continue to climb, and the forces allied against us are well funded. We need your help! Please consider making a donation (or renewing your membership if overdue) to help support our work to protect special wild places like the Grand Canyon/Colorado River corridor.

Back To Rock the Earth Notes »