ELR Citation: ELR 20524
No(s). s. 97-3282, -3292 (8th Cir. Jan 7, 1999)

The court upholds most of the U.S. Forest Service's Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) wilderness management plan under the BWCA Wilderness Act. The BWCA is located in the Superior National Forest in Minnesota. The court first holds that the Forest Service's adoption of special use permits for commercial towboats does not violate the BWCA Wilderness Act. The plain language of the statute requires the Secretary to implement a system of "entry point quotas" for motorboat use and caps the quota at 10,539 motorboat trips. The wilderness management plan limits commercial towboats to 1,342 trips per season. Separately, the plan sets the general motorboat use quota at 7,902 trips. The combined number of motorized boat trips that the plan allows totals 9,244 trips, which does not exceed the 10,539 trips cap mandated by the BWCA Wilderness Act.

The court next holds that the Forest Service's definition of "guests" of homeowners or resort owners as including only overnight lodgers is a reasonable interpretation of the BWCA Wilderness Act. Congress did not define the term in the Act, and the Forest Service's construction is a reasonable attempt to comply with the overall congressional intent of protecting the wilderness area through motorboat use restrictions. The court then holds that the Forest Service's definition of "lake" to include chains of individually named lakes for purposes of exempting homeowners, resort owners, and guests from the management plan's motorboat use quota system is impermissible. When Congress states in BWCA Wilderness Act §4(f) that property owners and their guests have access to "that particular lake," it is clear that each individually named lake is to be considered a "particular lake." It is not reasonable for the Forest Service to broaden this restrictive phrase by redefining the term "lake" to include several connected but individually named lakes.

The court next holds that outfitters challenging the plan have standing under the National Environmental Policy Act to challenge the Forest Service's final environmental impact statement (EIS). The court need not consider whether the outfitters are in fact more concerned with economics than with the welfare of the physical environment. Regardless of their intent, they have standing to ensure that the Forest Service adequately considers all of the statutorily referenced concerns when balancing the relevant factors in the final EIS. The court then upholds the Forest Service's final EIS for the plan. The EIS adequately considered the environmental, recreational, social, and economic impacts of the plan, and the Forest Service's use of methodologies, studies, and data was not arbitrary and capricious.

[The district court's decision in this litigation is published at 27 ELR 21366.]

Counsel for Appellants
Richard A. Duncan
Faegre & Benson
2200 Norwest Center
90 S. 7th St., Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 336-3000

Counsel for Appellees
Michelle L. Gilbert
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Friedrich Siekert
U.S. Attorney's Office
600 U.S. CtHse.
300 S. 4th St., Minneapolis MN 55415
(612) 664-5600

Before Wollman and Goldberg,¹ JJ.