ELR Citation: ELR 20518
No(s). 91-3032 (8th Cir. Nov 6, 1992)

The court holds that the existence of motorized portages at three locations in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness violates the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act. Interpreting the word "feasible," in §4(g) of the Act, to mean "capable of being done" or "physically possible," the court relies on evidence establishing that it is physically possible to transport boats at the three portages and holds that the decision of the U.S. Forest Service chief to continue operation of the motorized portages, which was based on a finding that no feasible alternative exists, violates the Act. The court concludes that the statute is unambiguous, because Congress spoke to the precise question at issue when it required the termination of the motorized portages. Moreover, the legislative history of the Act reflects Congress' intent to ban motorized portages unless it is physically impossible to transport boats to the lakes served by the portages.

Counsel for Appellants
Brian B. O'Neill
Faegre & Benson
2200 Norwest Ctr., 90 S. 7th St., Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 336-3000

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

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.