|
 <No Subject> New
- Forum: RaftZone
Re: Judge Dismisses Case Against Park Service rich.p New
Re: So What Does it Really Mean, Blanche??? rich.p New
Re: I have a question about the 50/50 launch allocation Gordo New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: I respectfully disagree that this is not the proper venue for this discussion, this is exactly what RZ was created for Gordo New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: Rich, don't worry... Pinecricker New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: Some facts: TomMartin New
Re: <No Subject> rich.p New
Re: I am a lawyer and I read the decision and I don't think you are mirage New
Date: Dec 04 2007, 16:39 GMT
From: rich.p
 |
|
 |
|
Hi Mike,
You are quite right -- my words in that post were imprecise.
But the ruling repeatedly said the Court disagreed with the claims made by RRFW. And those claims boiled down to saying the Park's thinking, analysis, and the Plan itself were flawed.
For example, from the Order:
[As to defective analysis] "Plaintiffs first contend that the Park Service failed entirely to determine that the types and levels of commercial services authorized by the 2006 CRMP are necessary and appropriate. The Court disagrees."
[As to planning] "Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that the 1976 Master Plan has been superceded and cannot be viewed as binding; and Plaintiffs devoted little time at argument or in their reply brief to their claim that the 1995 GMP creates legal obligations. The Court concludes that is does not."
[On the claim that the NPS should have followed the Wilderness Act standard] "Plaintiffs argue that the 2006 CRMP should be set aside because motorized traffic on the river does not constitute an “established use” under section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1133(d)(1). As noted earlier, however, this is not a Wilderness Act case."
[As to planning] "Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that the 1976 Master Plan has been superceded and cannot be viewed as binding; and Plaintiffs devoted little time at argument or in their reply brief to their claim that the 1995 GMP creates legal obligations. The Court concludes that is does not."
[As to planning and policy dictating future agency action] "Plaintiffs argue that because the FEIS and ROD purport to follow the 2001 Policies and the 1995 GMP, but in fact fail to do so, they are arbitrary and capricious. The Court does not agree."
[On the claim that the CRMP inadequately justified commercial motor use] "Plaintiffs argue that although the Park Service may have found commercial outfitters to be necessary and appropriate generally, it never made such a finding for motorized commercial services. Again the Court disagrees."
[On the claim that the NPS failed to meet NEPA requirements] "Plaintiffs contend that the Park Service failed to take a “hard look” at the cumulative impacts of noise on the Park as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502, 1508.7. The Court disagrees."
Seems to me that cumulatively, the body of the Order strongly supports the proposition that the Judge rejected RRFW claims that the NPS had not adequately compiled the CRMP.
Have a good one.
Rich Phillips
VP, GCPBA
gcpba.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gcpba/messages
|
|
 |
|
 |
- I stand by my statement. <NT> mirage New
|
BoaterTalk 
