## Facts

- The National Park Service (NPS) manages recreational use of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park via periodically revised river management plans.
- In 2005, NPS completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addressing alternatives for river use management, including motorized and non-motorized options.
- On February 17, 2006, NPS adopted the 2006 Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP) through a Record of Decision (ROD).
- The CRMP allowed continued, regulated use of motorized rafts and support equipment (including generators) and authorized certain helicopter exchanges.
- The CRMP also set allocations and operational limits for commercial (concessioner) and noncommercial (private) river trips, along with related restrictions (e.g., group size, seasonal limits, launch controls).
- Environmental organizations sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the CRMP unlawfully impaired wilderness character and other park values and conflicted with NPS management policies, the National Park Service Organic Act, and the National Park Service Concessions Management Act.
- The district court entered judgment for NPS and intervening commercial concession interests; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether NPS management policies constitute judicially enforceable substantive rules that can constrain NPS discretion in adopting the CRMP under APA “contrary to law” review.
2. Whether allowing limited motorized rafting, generators, and helicopter exchanges violates the Organic Act by “impairing” park resources or values.
3. Whether the CRMP’s commercial/noncommercial allocations or concession-related decisions violate the Concessions Management Act.
4. Whether the FEIS/ROD and the CRMP were arbitrary or capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court and denied relief.
- NPS management policies were not binding legislative rules and therefore were not independently enforceable standards for invalidating the CRMP under the APA.
- The CRMP did not violate the Organic Act’s impairment standard; NPS’s impairment analysis and balancing of uses were reasonable on this record.
- The CRMP did not violate the Concessions Management Act; the statute did not require a particular allocation formula, and NPS’s allocation decision fell within its discretion.
- The agency’s FEIS and ROD reflected consideration of impacts and alternatives and supported a reasoned choice; the CRMP was not arbitrary or capricious.

## Legal Principles

- Internal agency management policies generally lack the force of law absent promulgation as binding substantive rules; they do not, by themselves, supply enforceable constraints in APA “contrary to law” challenges.
- Under the APA, a court upholds agency action if the agency considered relevant factors and provided a reasoned explanation; courts do not substitute their policy preferences for the agency’s.
- The Organic Act’s “impairment” standard leaves NPS substantial discretion in assessing whether authorized uses impair park resources or values, particularly where the agency has evaluated impacts through an EIS and adopted mitigation and limits.
- The Concessions Management Act affords NPS discretion to balance visitor access and resource protection and does not mandate a fixed commercial/noncommercial allocation.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld NPS’s 2006 Colorado River Management Plan for the Grand Canyon, ruling that nonbinding NPS management policies could not be enforced as substantive limits under the APA and that NPS reasonably concluded, based on its FEIS and ROD, that regulated motorized use and trip allocations complied with the Organic Act and the Concessions Management Act.


River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010)