[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Case number 19-1044, Henry, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Hawaiian Coalition, Olomo Pono, Petitioners.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Does that understand?

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
For the petitioners, Mr. Grant, please respond.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
Dinerstein.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court.

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
My name is Paula Dinerstein, and I am representing the petitioners in this case, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER for short, and the Hawaii Island Coalition, Malama Pona.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
So 20 years ago, Congress passed a law, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, that was intended to either mitigate or avoid

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
the adverse impacts of air tours on national park cultural and natural values and visitor experience.

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
The law was passed to benefit exactly the type of people we represent, people who use the parks for recreation, the bird watchers, the hikers, the photographers, and also people with businesses in the parks who we also represent who have ground tour businesses,

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
who have environmental education businesses, in one case a soundscape recorder, and these people have been seriously harmed by the 20 year delay in implementing this act.

[00:02:08] Speaker 04:
We have people who are seeking undisturbed experiences of nature and wildlife and they're not getting them.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
We have people

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
who are in some of these parks where there's a very high volume of air tours or in other parks where there's kind of a moderate version like the Hawaii parks, Hawaii volcanoes, Haleakala have a very high volume where year round you're getting a high volume.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
Other parks like Glacier National Park, for instance, may have a more moderate total of air tours.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
but they're concentrated in two or three months of year of the summer and these people are having airplanes fly over them every 15 minutes at low altitudes and making very significant amount of noise.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
We have people who in their declarations have said they hike two or three days to get to a very remote area where they're expecting an experience of nature and natural sounds and they're being buzzed by helicopters.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
We have people who have said that they're seeing helicopters fly right up to a cliff and spook the wildlife.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
We have people with businesses in the parks who are doing tours and environmental education who are saying that their customers are not getting the experience they're looking for of a quiet, natural environment because of these air tours.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
Until this case was brought, the agencies had done

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
virtually nothing.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
There are two parks in the entire country out of the 25 that are now subject to the Act that have voluntary agreements.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
There are none that have air tour management plans.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
The government's, the agency's response is that they have been working on this.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
They have competing priorities, limited resources.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
There's only so much that can be

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
done.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Now typically we give a lot of deference to the agency when they are identifying their priorities and when they tell us we just don't have the resources.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
What's your response to that?

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
This is kind of a different case in that regard in that the agencies are telling you that they've spent lots of resources on this.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
that $25 million just on noise studies alone.

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
They spent between 2003 and 2011, eight years working on 16 air tour management plans, which they then abandoned.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
They then spent seven years working on

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
only voluntary agreements, which they now admit was always doomed to failure because people are not going to enter voluntary agreements when they can simply continue without restrictions to use their interim operating authority.

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
So I don't think this is a case where the problem is limited resources or competing priorities.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
This is a case where lots of resources have been put into this problem, but for some reason these agencies have been unwilling, unable to do the last step.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
You're very familiar with this case.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
What is your perception about what's going on?

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
Well, I can't say that we have evidence in the record for this.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
No, I understand that.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
But my perception of what is going on is that you have two agencies, the National Park Service whose mission is to protect park resources and visitor experience and then you have the FAA and their mission is supposed to be air safety.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
inherently no reason why they should be incompatible.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
You can restrict flights, you can reduce flights, you can mitigate their impacts without impacting air safety, but for some reason the FAA has been unwilling to say to the Park Service, go ahead, protect your resources and we'll just look at safety.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
They're saying we have to look at everything, we want to do environmental review the way we want to do it, and as a result they've had a stalemate.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
and they haven't come out with any plans.

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
Now they're telling the court that even though the reason, the supposed reason that they couldn't do this in the past was the differing missions of the agencies, which as I said, I don't think is really true.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
But now they're telling the court that, but now we're on track.

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
You know, we're going to overcome these.

[00:06:35] Speaker 04:
We got together, we talked about it, we're going to work it out.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
And why shouldn't we credit that?

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
The reason that we shouldn't credit that

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
First of all, it doesn't.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
It's contradictory to say we couldn't do this for 20 years because that's done.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
That's done.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but we're doing the bridge.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
So now they're saying we've got a plan, right?

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
And we're starting on it.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Why should we?

[00:06:57] Speaker 04:
So now we need to look at the plan that they have out of the 23 parks that need plans.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
Their plan only covers seven.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
There's no even target dates for the rest of them, which includes six out of the seven in our petition and 16 out of 23 in the whole system.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
They don't have a plan for that.

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
It doesn't assure within any time that those other parks will be done.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
The plan that they have has already slipped.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
You know, there are two parts where they were supposed to have come up with a voluntary agreement for public comment at the end of October.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
And those are Death Valley and Mount Rainier.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
And as the agency submitted in a 20HA,

[00:07:48] Speaker 04:
They weren't able to meet that deadline because the operators didn't like what the agencies had proposed for their voluntary plans.

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
And so now they're going to have to go back and try to make it more palatable to the operators.

[00:08:04] Speaker 04:
And they admit that that might not work at all, that they might have to go to an air tour management plan, which is not voluntary.

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
And they do not even have a substitute target date for those parks.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
So we're now in a position where there's no schedule.

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
And because they're saying that these are all dependent on each other and that they're not going to move ahead with other parks until they finish or at least finish certain milestones, in some parks, this is going to throw the whole schedule back.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
In addition, in the seven parks they picked,

[00:08:40] Speaker 04:
are all except for one.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
So what makes you think that if we granted the writ of mandamus that anything would be different?

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
I think that something would be different because they would be under a court order to do something.

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
The only reason they even come up with this plan was because we brought this case.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
Now they know they have to do something.

[00:09:00] Speaker 04:
But they have tried, I think, to convince the court that you should stay your hand based on a plan that isn't really a plan.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
It doesn't apply to very many parks.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
That has already slipped.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
That applies to two parks that don't even have air tours.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
You know, they've picked the low-hanging fruit.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
And if it's going to take them two and a half years to do these seven parks, then it's going to take... I'm just curious.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Has Congress expressed any interest in this of late?

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
Congress amended the act in 2012.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
Excuse me.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
And at that time, they added the possibility of voluntary plans, but they didn't take away the air tour management provisions that said the agencies have to cooperate.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
There have been no hearings on this or threat of holding appropriations up?

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
I'm not aware of any such congressional action.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
And I know the government has argued that maybe the court shouldn't do anything because there's no congressional action.

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
However, under the APA, this court has a duty to compel agency action unreasonably delayed.

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
And there is not an expectation that the court won't do anything just because Congress hasn't come back and said, hey, you're not implementing our law.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
Congress has a lot of things to do.

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
They may not get around to that for everything, every law they pass.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
But this court has the obligation to enforce the law in accordance with the APA.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
And this court has always done so.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
Ever since the track case in 1984,

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
which in fact was compiling other past cases, this court has said that the extraordinary relief of mandamus does apply to unreasonable delay and they've set out factors for figuring out when it does apply.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
And they have, the court, your court has not withheld relief simply because Congress hasn't come back and tried to do something about the fact that the law they passed is not being implemented.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
So continuing along the line of this court's precedent on mandamus, this court has never found this amount of delay to be reasonable.

[00:11:19] Speaker 04:
This is really at the outer edges of the mandamus cases that this court has considered.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
We cited several cases in our brief.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
We have, for instance, in the American Rivers, where six years was found unreasonable.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
Blue water network, nine years is unreasonable.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
In Nader versus FCC, this court said that nine years should be enough time for an agency to do just about anything.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
In core communications, it's six years.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
Chemical workers, six years.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
And then where there is a threat to human health, as in the case of public citizen versus actor.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Which there isn't here, correct?

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
Pardon me?

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
There isn't here, right?

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
There is, I'm sorry.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
Is not here such a threat, right?

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
There is not, no, we're not, I mean, this is not- You're not claiming that in this case.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
We're not claiming this is not comparable to a toxic chemical, but in that case, you know, they found that three years was too much.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
There's never been a case that has found this kind of delay to be acceptable.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
You know, we're not absolutely tied.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
The statute says that there was an expectation that they would make every effort to put out these plans within two years.

[00:12:34] Speaker 04:
We're not absolutely tied for a remedy to the two years.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
That's what's in the statute.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
That certainly could be the remedy.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
What do you think a reasonable remedy would be?

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
I think that if we could work out or the court could work out with the parties a remedy that was maybe four years or five years, we wouldn't object to that.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
It wouldn't object to what?

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
to the remedy being four years or five years instead of two.

[00:13:03] Speaker 04:
But what we really need is a court deadline, an enforceable court deadline, because given the history, given even what they're doing now and the way it's already slipping, I don't think there's any guarantee that we wouldn't be here 10 years from now in pretty much the same position if there weren't a court.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
Do we have an in-rate bar labs problem here?

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
In other words,

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
If we were to grant mandamus relief and say three years or something, would the agency just have to turn its attention to the plans you want as opposed to the ones they're working on?

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
In other words, would it change

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
Would it just .

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
I think the language that was used in Inray Barleth was jump the line, right?

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
Is that a risk here?

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
No, we're not asking to jump the line.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
No, but isn't that the consequence?

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
I'm asking whether that would be the consequence of what you're asking us.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
I think that if this court issues a remedy .

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
We brought our case about seven parks because that's where we had injured members, but if this court issues a remedy, I think it should apply to all 23 parks that don't have

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
plans or agreements, we're not asking to be put ahead in the line.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
We're not asking for the order of things to be dictated by the court.

[00:14:21] Speaker 04:
So if you don't have any more questions at this point, I could save the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the court, Eric Grant, for the respondent federal agencies.

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
I'm not here this morning to defend 19 years.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
That's good.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Good move.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Good move.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
That's a good start.

[00:14:50] Speaker 01:
I am here to respectfully remind the court of two precepts, including one that Your Honor Judge Tatel mentioned, the Barr Laboratories case, about reordering agency priorities.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
Would that happen here?

[00:15:04] Speaker 01:
It would, Your Honor.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
If our order applied to all parks, all 17, then there wouldn't be any reordering, right?

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, what I would like to do is make a pitch for our September 30th submission, our implementation plan.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
Which the agency's already violated, right?

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we have not met all of the target dates we explained in... That's another way to put it, correct?

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
It is another way to put it, Your Honor.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
We explained in our Rule 28J filing on Friday some of the challenges that we faced with the air tour operators there and the steps that we're taking to get back on what we think is a reasonable schedule.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
So, reminding, what's the reasonable schedule?

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
What's the government's proposal here?

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, this is in our filing.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
You've acknowledged 19 years is inadequate.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
So what, going forward, what's the best way forward?

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
We've done more than just give a single date that's several years out, Your Honor.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
In our September 30th filing, beginning on page 19, we have... Let's start with that.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
What's the date?

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
What's the outer limit?

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
When can this get done?

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
There are many dates, Your Honor.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
We've described seven parks.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
Talk about 23.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
The Congress has told you to do something in 23 parks.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
How much time would it take the agency to get it done?

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
As I stand here, Your Honor, I don't have an answer for that.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
You see, that's the problem.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
That is the problem.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
As you said, that's astounding that you don't have an answer for that.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
I would have thought that you had a great opening line.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
I'm not going to defend 19 years.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
I thought the next line would be, at least prepare it to say, we can get it done by the X. But you're not here.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
You can't do that.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
I'm a lawyer, Your Honor.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
So then we get there.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
So I guess we have to decide that.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
Help us.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
Your clients put us in a tough position because as you say, you're not the defendant 19 years, but most agencies that face this, they come back with something.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
Basically, what your agency has said is, we're going to do our best to do these seven in two years or so, and then those will be models for the rest.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
The agency's given the court nothing to grab onto here.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
You said we'll apply lessons learned in the seven parks to subsequent parks.

[00:17:33] Speaker 03:
I'm reading the language.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
While the agencies are not yet in a position

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
to specify with certainty when the next parks will be done.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
They will consider the selection factors and apply lessons learned.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
The agency gives the court nothing.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
You don't give us anything to say, okay, we don't have to grant mandamus relief because we have an agency here that's actually not only trying to do it, but it's finally set a schedule that is meaningful.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
You just haven't given us that.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
With respect, Your Honor, I disagree that the agencies have given you nothing.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Again, beginning on page 19 of that submission, there is a plan with multiple dates for multiple parks covering a third of the remaining 23 parks.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
And as your honor pointed out, it's the agency's position that those, the lessons learned from those will allow the agencies to complete the entire statutory mandate of all 23 parks.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
It's certainly not the agency's position that we need only do seven, we need to do them all because this is one of Congress's statutory mandates.

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
But we are

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
and implementing other statutory mandates as your honor.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Why did we get here?

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
What's your explanation for how we got here?

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
Nineteen years later, that's all we've got.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
What happened?

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
We described on pages seven through 16 of our brief the efforts that in which the agencies engaged over the past couple of decades and while those did not bear fruit in more than two parks,

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
we submit respectfully that those did give us a base to begin the process that we described in our September 30th submission.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
What took so long?

[00:19:26] Speaker 02:
What is the problem here?

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
How will it be avoided in the future?

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
My colleague on the other side explained these are two agencies with different missions.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
Congress knew that when it said two years.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
It said the FAA in cooperation with the Park Service.

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
It knew that.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
Congress knew that.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
It may have known that, Your Honor, but Congress crafted what we think is certainly a distinctive, if not a unique, statute that requires two agencies with different missions to agree on complex decisions, including environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
Has the agency ever thought about maybe going back to Congress?

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
Did it ever think 10 years ago it should go back and say to Congress, look, we're doing our best.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
You told us two and a half years.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
We're not even close.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
Please give us more years and more money, or get the Park Service out of it, or something.

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
I mean, did you, has that ever been done?

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
Or even considered?

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
With respect, I would disagree with your premise about the two years.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
As my colleague on the other side conceded, I think, that particular statutory provision uses the phrase best effort.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
Best effort, sure.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
But Congress did look at this.

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
But best efforts to do two years, as you agree, does not mean 19 years, right?

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
I do agree.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
OK, yeah.

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
And how complex is it?

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, there are two of the parks, Death Valley and Mount Rainier,

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
have zero air tours, and yet the timeline that you all have anticipates it'll take up to two years to complete air tour management plans.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
How's that?

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
I'm missing something.

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
There are no air tours there, and it's going to take you two years to come up with a plan.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
We nonetheless need to do the environmental reviews.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
We need to do tribal consultation.

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
Wait, why do you have to do an environmental review if there's no air flights?

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
What's to review?

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
Your honor, under the mandate of this statute, we are required to follow the National Environmental Policy Act.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
I see.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
And in looking forward and setting.

[00:21:46] Speaker 03:
That sounds like a pretty simple environmental impact statement.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
No fights, no impact.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
For a court that hears NEPA cases, your honor.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
I just wrote it for you.

[00:21:54] Speaker 01:
That one's done.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
I again would respectfully disagree with that characterization.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
direct the court to page 21 of 29 of our September 30th submission that explains why the agency selected the particular parks.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
There are a mix of designated wilderness areas.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
There are a mix of parks with different kinds of vegetation which affects noise.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
There are different geographic areas.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
There are parks that involve tribal consultation.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
There are parks with very high, Judge Griffith has mentioned the parks with low numbers.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
There are parks with very high numbers, including the Badlands and Mount Rushmore, which are the first two at the top of the list on our September 30th plan.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
It's not a perfect world, but the FAA is in charge of the nation's air safety, which encompasses 44,000 flights a day, 2.7 million passengers a day, a billion passengers a year.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
And for its part, the National Park Service administers 400 areas throughout the nation, comprising 85 million acres

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
and handling 330 million visitors.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
So we're doing other things as well.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
We need to do this and we will do it.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
I would completely understand if you can't answer the question I'm about to ask you.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
But as counsel to the agency.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
But suppose we said, look, this has gone on too long.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
Based on our case law and the record in this case, we think we need to grant mandamus and we need to come up with a date.

[00:23:39] Speaker 03:
plaintiffs just told us, petitioners just told us they'd be happy with four or five years.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
What do you think about that?

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, Your Honor, I think the better course would be for us to continue on this existing plan and report back to the court in some reasonable time like six months and for the court to be, I hope and expect to be satisfied at that time that we're on a path

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
And that we will be continuing on that path and get get the first third done before we get on to the onto the second third to as my colleague said to pick the low hanging fruit and then go on to the higher hanging fruit to walk before we run.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
But I think

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
respectfully, just picking a date, whether it's near or far, is not going to be the solution to this very difficult problem.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
And while I can understand the court's skepticism with the agencies, again, we've not done nothing.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
And even before this particular petition for review was filed, we started work again.

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
laid out in the declaration of the Associate Director of the National Park Service Raymond Saviot in our September 30th

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
submission, that we've started work, we're on our way.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
And so with respect, we would ask the court to give us a chance to get those things under our belt.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
And some reasonable time, I respectfully suggest six months, would be the way to accomplish that.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
Unless the court has further questions.

[00:25:42] Speaker 04:
Okay, I'll try to be brief.

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
So they said that all the work they've done in the past gave them a base.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
We asked them to use that base and move quickly and that they can commit to a time, a definite time.

[00:26:08] Speaker 04:
They talk about agencies not being able to cooperate under NEPA.

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
In fact, under NEPA, agencies cooperate all the time.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
The regulations include having a lead agency and a cooperating agency just as there is here, and they have to oftentimes also cooperate with tribes, local governments, etc.

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
And we have lots of cases where that cooperation has led to huge delays.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
It happens all the time.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
But that hasn't stopped the court from insisting that something get done eventually.

[00:26:40] Speaker 04:
That is not a reason to say that there should be no deadline.

[00:26:44] Speaker 04:
And we don't think that coming back in six months and reporting progress is really going to be enough here under the circumstances.

[00:26:51] Speaker 04:
We think the court needs to give a time limit.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
Maybe we should say all deliberate speed.

[00:26:56] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
All deliberate speed.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
All deliberate speed.

[00:26:59] Speaker 04:
Yeah, we're still working on that one.

[00:27:01] Speaker 04:
So we hope we can do better than that.

[00:27:04] Speaker 04:
All right, thank you.

[00:27:09] Speaker ?:
30 strong.