Public Natural Resources Law - Assignment Example

Public Natural Resources Law Introduction The National Park Service created within the Department of Interior, generally adopts the preservation mission, in that, “it shall promote and regulate the use of the national parks, monuments, and reservations, as provided by law, by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations,” (16 U.S.C. A. §1). There have been issues however especially by environmentalists that some national parks have been filled with facilities such as restaurants, shops, campgrounds and other recreational facilities or activities “to a degree entirely inappropriate for the place” (Mantell 1). They assert that “preservation purpose of park establishment should outweigh visitor accommodation desires for development beyond bare necessities” (Coggins and Glicksman 1). Because of intensive recreation, the preservation of park resources seemed to have been endangered (Mausolf v. Babbitt, 1996) and the preservational value compromised (Laitos & Carr 140 and 144). With these issues, it is therefore important to examine if indeed the primary purpose of preservation have been implemented and Court decisions regarding this. The paper hopes to provide some cases which tackle this very issue on preservation of parks and recreational facilities made. The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al. The parties to this case are the plaintiff Sierra Club which is an environmental group and the defendants composed of Mr. Lujan who is the Secretary of Interior and TW Recreational Services (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). This case involved the north rim of Grand Canyon where there was a planned construction of hotel and restaurant complex (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). In this case, the National Park Service (NPS) planned to build a new hotel complex on the North Rim and hence, entered into a contract in 1984 with a concessionaire, TW Recreational Services, Inc. (TW) (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). TW would be constructing a new hotel, which would include a restaurant, employee dining facility and other improvements (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). These improvements were however subject to the limitations and provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as acknowledged in the contract (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The contract also included the construction of overnight guest units and additional campsites among others (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The NPS did not however complete the NEPA process “prior to contracting for the construction of the new hotel complex with TW,” (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). Because of this, the environmental group filed a motion for a preliminary injunction restraining construction of hotel and restaurant complex on north rim of Grand Canyon (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The plaintiff argued that the record is not complete and claimed that NPS's failure to provide the record under was intended to forestall opposition to the hotel project (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The defendants on the other hand raise the defense of laches and argued that “it is not necessary for the agency to comply with the requirements of NEPA including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) before formulating a proposed action, as subsequent compliance was designed to justify the original proposal (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The District Court in this case preliminarily enjoined the contractor from beginning construction of a hotel and restaurant facility on north rim of Grand Canyon as the environmental group demonstrated that the National Park Service did not comply with applicable statutes and regulations in approving the project and thus raising of serious questions (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). It held that the denial of the preliminary injunction would cause irreparable harm to the Bright Angel Point/North Rim environment where public interest is obvious (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). Furthermore it stated that the Agency's decision in this case may have been arbitrary and capricious, in its lack of determination not to prepare an EIS (The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al.). The Fund for Animals v. Norton The plaintiffs in this case are composed of The Fund for Animals which is a national non-profit membership organization and Yellow Stone Coalition which is a conservation organization (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The two groups of plaintiffs represent other organizations (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The defendants on the other hand are composed of the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Director of the National Park Service (NPS) Fran Mainella, with other Federal defendants (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (“ISMA”), the BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc., and the State of Wyoming also intervened as defendants. This case involves trail grooming and the snowmobile use in national parks (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). There arose a conflict between the NPS's mandate to protect park resources and the accommodation of visitors' desires to view the parks via snowmobiles during the winter season (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). Hence, the concern here, were the effects of trail grooming and snowmobiling on the Parks' wildlife, especially bison wherein large numbers of bison left the Parks because of oversnow vehicle use (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The Fund thus sought a cessation of trail grooming in the Parks while Yellowstone sought a gradual phase-out of snowmobile use in favor of mass transport snowcoach use (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The preservation and conservation organizations thus brought suit challenging decision of NPS in allowing continued snowmobiling and winter trail grooming in certain national parks and a new rule allowing around 950 snowmobiles to enter the Parks instead of phasing them out (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). They further allege that snowmobiling and trail grooming caused air and noise pollution, threaten wildlife and endangered species, and create health threats to visitors and park employees (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). Defendants on the other hand argue that their own Management Policies are not binding on them (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The NPS also posits that the use of guided group tours will mitigate snowmobiler interaction with wildlife, and that limiting entries to 950 snowmobiles per day will greatly reduce the negative impacts of snowmobiles (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). The District Court held among others that NPS's adoption of final rule reversing an earlier ruling that required complete phase out of snowmobiles in national parks because of their negative environmental impacts on resources and wildlife, and instead allowed 950 snowmobiles to enter national parks each day, was arbitrary and capricious (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). It also held that NPS should have considered full range of alternatives considering that the cessation of trail grooming in supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandate (The Fund for Animals v. Norton). Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney The parties to this case involve plaintiff Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance which is a nonprofit corporation, and defendants composed of Walt Dabney, the superintendent of Canyonlands National Park; Joseph Alston, superintendent of Glen National Recreation Area; John Cook , Regional Director; and the National Park Service (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). The case involves the implementation of the backcountry management plan for national parks (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). The Backcounty Management Plan (BMP) is that which continues the Park Service's previous policy of allowing the use of four-wheel-drive vehicles on rough jeep tracks or trails traversing Canyonlands National Park and portions of the adjoining Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). The final BMP adopted a zoning system, where visitor use within each zone is permitted accordingly and a certain number of vehicles to be allowed per day (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). Environmental organization hence brought suit challenging decision of National Park Service (NPS) to implement backcountry management plan for national parks (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). Plaintiff alleges the Park Service violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in implementing the BMP in violation of agency regulations, the National Park Service Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in adopting the permit system without having a rational basis for doing so (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). Hence the issue in this case is whether the implementation of the said management plan was unlawful and “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). The NPS argued that they balance between competing mandates of resource conservation and visitor enjoyment and hence their decision represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting mandates that is to be afforded considerable deference (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). The District Court in this case held that NPS could allow operation of jeep trails in canyons as park roads providing access and circulation within the parks but could not permit use of off-road vehicles in canyon featuring unique riparian areas (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). It further held that NPS’s decision to allow such trails represented a reasonable accommodation of competing interests and consideration of relevant factors (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). Hence, in this case, the NPS cannot cater to rising recreational demand indefinitely (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney). National Wildlife Federation v. National Park Service The parties to this case are National Wildlife Federation, Wyoming Wildlife Federation who are plaintiffs and the National Park Service(NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior as defendants (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). This case involves an administrative decision by the NPS to keep the Fishing Bridge Campground operating at a reduced level pending the findings of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with its effect on the survival of the grizzly bear, a threatened species (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). The plaintiffs National Wildlife Federation and Wyoming Wildlife Federation assert that as a result of the decision to continue operations at Fishing Bridge Campground, the defendants National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Department of Interior are in direct violation of provisions contained in the Endangered Species Act (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). Plaintiffs assert that this Court must find that the ESA clearly requires all federal agencies to formulate programs designed to protect and conserve endangered or threatened species (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). Plaintiffs assert that the continued operation of Fishing Bridge constitutes a “taking” under the ESA (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). The ESA defines the term “take” as meaning “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct,” (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). Defendants argue that the Organic Act is silent as to how the protection of park resources and their administration are to be effected, hence it had broad discretion in determining which avenues best achieve the Organic Act's mandate (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). The Court held that the Park Service is empowered with the authority to determine what uses of park resources are proper and what proportion of the park's resources are available for such use (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). Furthermore, the Court held that, it is not the campground that presents the greatest threats to the grizzly bear; rather, it is those people who, choose to disregard the National Park Service's rules and regulations (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). It held that the Park Service's decision to continue operations of the Fishing Bridge Campground at a reduced level under its Interim Management Plan pending findings from an Environmental Impact Statement is not violative of the Endangered Species Act (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). The Court further finds that the decision by the Park Service did not violate the National Park Service Organic Act or the Administrative Procedure Act (National Wildlife Federation v. NPS). Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt The parties to this case involve the plaintiffs composed of the Friends of Ironbridge Park, David R. Cosby, and Sandra B. Cosby (FIP) and the defendants composed of Bruce Babbitt who is the Secretary of the US Department of Interior, Keith Everett who is the Superintendent of the National Park Service, Cynthia Wilkerson who is the Programs Director of the National Park Service, L. Douglas Pritchard, Jr. who is the Engineering Supervisor of the Chesterfield County Engineering Department, Robert Stanton who is the Director of the National Park Service, Lane B. Ramsey who is the Administrator of Chesterfield County and Richmond First Tee (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). The case involves the construction of a public golf course and related facilities in Ironbridge Park in Chesterfield County in Virginia, that was developed in part with funds awarded under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). FIP contends that the NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that such construction would not bring about a change in use that would "significantly contravene the original plans for the area," (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Hence, they claimed that a declaration of NPS’s approval is required before the golf facility may be constructed (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). FIP notes that the regulations specifically require federal agency approval prior to converting an area from a passive to an active use (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). The Secretary, on the other hand, contends that the area in the context of the regulation refers to the entire project area, rather than only to the 150 acres on which the golf facility is proposed to be built (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). The Court held in this case that it must defer to an agency's construction of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation," (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Here, the land depicted in the boundary map was the entire 400-acre Ironbridge Park (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Accordingly, the Secretary's interpretation is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulation, and it therefore is controlling (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). In view of the meaning of "area" as used in the regulations, it is clear that the NPS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that the construction of the golf facility would not constitute a change in use of the area from passive to active such that would require NPS approval of the change (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). The original plans were for Ironbridge Park to be used for both active and passive purposes (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Because construction of the golf facility on 150 acres of the park will not change the mixed character of the park as a whole, the regulations do not require NPS approval before the golf facility can be constructed (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Hence, NPS acted rationally in deciding that its approval was not required regarding the construction of the golf facility (Friends of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt). Analysis In the above-mentioned cases, it mentions National Park Service’s discretion in creating recreational facilities and having recreational activities. However, it must comply with applicable statutes and discretion in the implementation should not be arbitrary and capricious. It must balance the need for recreational activities and facilities and at the same time maintain the basic policy of preserving the parks. It has the discretion to permit other uses as long as it has the necessary assessments and findings to defend that no adverse environmental impact may result nor violate any statute. Policies must then be geared towards weighing the need for facilities and park management so that in the future, it may avoid actions by environmental and non-governmental groups. Works Cited 16 U.S.C. A. §1 Coggins, G. and Robert Glicksman. Public Natural Resources Law. Vol. 3. St. Paul MN.: West Group, 2007. Friends Of Ironbridge Park v. Babbitt United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit, No. 98-2373, July 22, 1999 Laitos, J. and T. Carr, "The Transformation on Public Lands." 26 Ecology Law Quarterly. 1999: 140, 144. Mantell, M. "Preservation and Use: Concessions in the National Parks." 8 Ecology Law Quarterly. 1979: 1. Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1304 (8th Cir. 1996). Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney 7 F.Supp.2d 1205 (1998). The Fund for Animals v. Norton, 294 F.Supp.2d 92, 58 ERC 1208, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,010 (2003). The Sierra Club v. Lujan, et al., 716 F.Supp. 1289, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,456 (1989). National Wildlife Federation v. National Park Service 669 F.Supp. 384 (1987). Read More