ELR Citation: ELR 21366
No(s). 5-94-CV-154 (D. Minn. Jun 16, 1997)

The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's management plan for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) does not unduly limit access to the BWCA, nor does it permit excessive motorized boat use in the BWCA. The court first holds that the management plan's definition of "guest" as "a person receiving overnight lodging . . . with the consent of a keeper or owner" is supported by the BWCA Wilderness Act (BWCAW Act). Canoe outfitter plaintiffs argue that the definition violates the BWCAW Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it ignores the ordinary meaning of "guest" by unduly restricting the term to overnight lodgers. The court rejects their proffered definition of guest as encompassing anyone who stops at a resort. As guests are exempt from the BWCAW Act, plaintiffs' definition would allow limitless numbers of visitors to be exempt from the permit requirements, effectively negating the entry quota required by the BWCAW Act. The court next holds that the visitor-use limitations under the management plan are supported by sufficient evidence. Defendants' decision to limit visitor use in the BWCA was based on such factors as campsite deterioration, visitor dissatisfaction with encountering other visitors, overall increases in visitor use, projected travel patterns, and average daily demand for use permits. The court also rejects plaintiffs' attacks on defendants' travel data sources used to support the plan because the data sources were formulated by extensive studies.

Next, the court dismisses the canoe outfitter plaintiffs' Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. Because the ADA does not contain an explicit, unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity, and because that waiver cannot be implied, the ADA claim must be dismissed. In addition, the management plan does not violate the BWCAW Act's directive to provide opportunities for the disabled because the plan reduces access for all visitors. The court further holds that because the canoe outfitter plaintiffs seek redress for economic loss and raise no environmental concerns as part of their National Environmental Policy Act claim, their asserted interests lie beyond the zone of interests protected by the statute.

The court next addresses conservation plaintiffs' claims. The court holds that the exemption created for commercial motorized towboats does not violate the BWCAW Act or the APA. Section 4(f) of the BWCAW Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement "entry point quotas for use of motorboats." The use of the term "quotas" shows that Congress did not intend that the Secretary impose a single quota for all motorized craft. Additionally, the court holds that defendants were not arbitrary and capricious in treating lake chains as a "particular lake" because such a categorization is a long-standing practice of the Forest Service and because the lake chains are interconnected and require no portaging.

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

Counsel for Defendants
Friedrich Siekert, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
234 U.S. CtHse.
110 S. 4th St., Minneapolis MN 55401
(612) 348-1500