ROAR Bighorn Sheep Logo "Rags Over the Arkansas River" NO to Christo ROAR Colorado

To preserve and protect the headwaters of the Arkansas River, the Bighorn Sheep Canyon, its inhabitants and the communities that depend upon them.

   

 

ROAR Colorado Home
ROAR Issues NO to Christo Over the River
News and Events for Say NO to Christo
Letters and Photos about Christo Over the River Project

 

 

 


OTR mobile crane on Hwy 50 - 2 lanes blocked Record of Lawsuit News, Updates, and other Info

  • Federal Suit vs BLM
  • State Suit vs Colorado Parks and Wildlife
  • Other News & Info
  • (Note: Most recent info listed first.)

    Sept. 12, 2012: Following OTR being allowed to join (intervene) with BLM as defendant in ROAR's lawsuit before US Federal District Court, Judge Kane orders OTR to "Hang no sheets" unless he give the word.

    August 14: Judge Kane Issues Amended Stay for OTR Project with Conditions. Read this order and more about OTR's delay and the lawsuits.

    August 6: ROAR filed its reply in federal court in support of its Motion to Amend (previously filed on July 27). Find out more and read ROAR's reply in the Motion to Amend exchange.

    Friday, July 27: ROAR's lead attorney, Mike Harris, filed on ROAR's behalf our motion to amend the stay order so to preserve our rights in expecting the stay order to be honored by BLM as overseer to OTR. Read more...

    Thursday, July 5, 2012: Federal District Judge Kane denied BLM's motion to dismiss ROAR's lawsuit. He also stayed (paused) both the suit and any OTR site work pending the outcome of a separately filed administrative appeal by an individual to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.


    July 25, 2011: Lawsuit Filed in Opposition to State Parks Action

    Government Agencies that control Bighorn Sheep CanyonRags Over the Arkansas River (ROAR), Arkansas River Fly Shop and ArkAnglers filed a lawsuit Friday, July 22, 2011 charging the Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation with violating its own regulations by permitting the Over the River Corporation to use the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Parks facilities, for up to five years, for a large-scale, industrial art exhibition over the Arkansas River between Salida and Canon City.

    Download and Read the press release announcing this action.

    Download and Read the full text of the complaint (lawsuit).

    Background Information:

    June 24, 2011: The Colorado Parks and Outdoor Recreation Board approved an agreement with OTR Corporation.

    Please bear in mind that this is not the permit that Christo needs to proceed with the project, which can only be granted by the BLM. This agreement is contingent on BLM's full or partial approval of the project.


    These documents are in pdf format. If you don't already have the free Adobe PDF reader on your computer, you may download it here.

    Note: if you have problems downloading any of our Word or PDF documents, click here.

    Press Release: AHRA State Park Advisory Board vetoes OTR.


    Other News and Events in 2012:

    ROAR presented information to CDOT Commssioners on the years of adverse traffic and safety impacts of OTR. Read the reports.

    Fremont County Sheriff opposes "Over the River." Read his letter to County Commissioners

    ROAR and others opposed to OTR presented a strong force at the Fremont County Commssioners' public hearings. See FCC permit decision.

    Revealed at the Fremont County hearings: New analysis exposes the traffic and safety hazards of OTR's latest construction plan.

    ROAR's Documented Comments to Fremont County:

    Further reference information:

    Read ROAR's informational brochure outlining current OTR issues.

    Alternate Routes? Copper Gulch road is often mentioned as a possible alternate route around OTR construction and exhibition in the lower canyon. Is this a reasonable option? See our Copper Gulch photo set and decide for yourself.



    ROAR's official objections fall into two major categories:

    1. Management Policy in the proposed project area.
    These included such items as conflicts with current and historical management missions and directives, protection of specific wildlife and environment in the project area, restricted surface activities (such as drilling), visual intrusion, and other management directives.
    2. Specific adverse affects that will result from all phases of the 3-year presence of OTR.
    Our comments cited specific and significant impacts to area residents, such as safety and emergency response; major traffic delays; economic impacts to area businesses and jobs, particularly to recreation industries; environmental degradation to wildlife, habitat, air and water quality.