Isle Royale Boaters Ass'n v. Norton
| Decision Date | 06 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:99-CV-152.,2:99-CV-152. |
| Parties | ISLE ROYALE BOATERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale NORTON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Grant J. Merritt, Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs.
Glenda G. Gordon, U.S. Attorney, Marquette, MI, for defendants.
In accordance with the Opinion entered this day:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavits (docket # 116) and Second Motion to Strike Affidavits (docket # 121) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 117) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket # 47) is DENIED.
This case is closed.
OPINION AND ORDER
Table of Contents
I. Facts ........................................................................1108
II. Statutory Background .........................................................1108
A. National Park Service Organic Act .........................................1109
B. Isle Royale National Park Act .............................................1109
C. Isle Royale Wilderness Statute.............................................1109
D. The Wilderness Act ........................................................1110
E. Root-Bryce Treaty of 1909 .................................................1110
F. National Environmental Policy Act .........................................1111
G. Rehabilitation Act and Americans With Disabilities ........................1111
III. Motion Standard ..............................................................1111
IV. Motions to Strike.............................................................1112
V. Analysis .....................................................................1113
A. Standing ..................................................................1113
B. Violations of Law..........................................................1116
1. Wilderness Act .........................................................1116
2. Isle Royale National Park Act ..........................................1119
3. Root-Bryce Treaty ......................................................1119
4. Isle Royale Wilderness Act .............................................1119
5. National Park Service Organic Act and Isle Royale National Park Act ....1124
6. NEPA ...................................................................1125
a. Rigorous Analysis....................................................1127
b. Lack of Site-Specific Analysis ......................................1129
c. Failure to Prepare Supplemental EIS .................................1131
d. Failure to Disclose Critical Documents...............................1132
e. Lack of Accuracy and Integrity ......................................1132
7. Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act .............1134
C. Arbitrary and Capricious Acts .............................................1135
VI. Conclusion ...................................................................1140
OPINION
The controversy in this case centers around Isle Royale, a national park located on an island in the waters of Lake Superior. Plaintiffs, a group of motorboaters who regularly visit Isle Royale, filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 706, seeking review of a General Management Plan ("GMP") adopted by the National Park Service (referred to as "NPS" or collectively with the other defendants as "Defendants") to govern its administration of Isle Royale National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. Plaintiffs claim that the NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the GMP and that the GMP violates various laws. Now before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.1
Isle Royale (sometimes referred to as the "Park") is a national park located in the waters of Lake Superior. In addition to being a national park, Isle Royale is also a federal wilderness area. Isle Royale is managed by NPS, which, as will be explained in the section of this Opinion regarding relevant statutes, enjoys broad statutory authority to regulate the Park. Beginning in February 1994, and pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1a-7 (), NPS began the process of preparing a GMP to guide its administration of the island. A series of public meetings were held, and in March, 1998, NPS produced a draft GMP, which also served as an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The draft GMP contained five alternative plans (A—E), one of which was the preferred plan selected by Defendants. Comments on the draft GMP from the public and various government agencies were submitted to the NPS. Based on those comments, the NPS made revisions to the proposed plan. A final GMP/EIS was produced in August 1998. The GMP outlined the alternatives for managing the Park, identifying alternative D, as revised, as the proposed alternative. A record of decision ("ROD") selecting the proposed alternative was executed on May 11, 1999.
The goal of the proposed alternative was stated as follows:
to meet the diverse expectations and needs of Isle Royale visitors while emphasizing the natural quiet that is fundamental to wilderness experiences. All park areas will be available to all visitors, so long as users participate in ways that are consistent with the access, facilities, and opportunities provided. Management zones will provide guidance for managing specific areas for desired visitor experience and resource conditions.
(ROD at 1, AR at 14799). In order to implement this goal,
Campgrounds will be designed and access provided to separate motorized and non-motorized uses in a few areas; certain docks will be removed or relocated, for example, and some new campgrounds will be provided. A variety of uses will be available that will be fairly evenly distributed across the island. Use limits may become necessary in some management zones to prevent overcrowding and maintain quiet and solitude. Quiet/no-wake water zones will be established to reduce noise and wake impacts in numerous areas. Other regulations aimed at reducing sound associated with humans will also be implemented.
(Id.).
Plaintiffs disagree with numerous aspects of the proposed action as detailed in the GMP, particularly those affecting motorboaters. They filed this suit on August 18, 1999, and filed a first amended Complaint on March 6, 2000, requesting that this Court permanently enjoin NPS from implementing the GMP. Plaintiffs allege that the proposed actions of removing docks, shelters, and the Indian Portage Trail; dividing the Park into zones allowing varying levels of use and modification of the environment within these levels; and proposing the future creation of nonmotorized zones, violate the statutes listed below, in spite of the broad authority these statutes give NPS to regulate and manage the Park.
The NPS, as a unit of the Department of the Interior, manages Isle Royale. The source of its statutory authority, and other relevant statutes, follow. The sum provisions of these statutes are that Isle Royale is a National Park, a wilderness under the Wilderness Act, and is managed by NPS pursuant to statutory authority.
16 U.S.C. § 1, a section of the National Park Service Organic Act ("NPSOA"), enacted in 1916, creates the National Park Service. It provides:
There is created in the Department of the Interior a service to be called the National Park Service, which shall be under the charge of a director .... The service ... shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks ... by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, ... which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
16 U.S.C. § 1.
In addition, 16 U.S.C. § 1a-2(h) affirms NPS' authority to
[p]romulgate and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within areas of the National Park System, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, that any regulations adopted pursuant to this subsection shall be complementary to, and not in derogation of, the authority of the United States Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
The provisions designating and governing Isle Royale's creation as a national park, adopted in 1931, are contained at 16 U.S.C. §§ 408-408l. (The "Isle Royale National Park Act" or "IRNPA"). Section 1 of IRNPA provides that "[w]hen title to all alienated lands within Isle Royale in Lake Superior ... and immediately surrounding islands ... shall have been vested in the United States, ... said area shall be, and is hereby, established, dedicated, and set apart as a public park for the benefit and enjoyment of the people...." 16 U.S.C. § 408. Section 3 of IRNPA provides that: "The administration, protection, and development of the aforesaid park shall be exercised under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton
...rejects this argument for the same reasons stated above.2 Defendants cite the court to the recent decision in Isle Royale Boaters Association, 154 F.Supp.2d 1098 (W.D.Mich.2001), in which the court cited the following excerpt from the NPS Planner's GMPs are now defined as conceptual plans t......
-
Oak Ridge Envtl. Peace Alliance v. Perry
...EIS that "reflects the broad environmental consequences attendant upon a wide-ranging federal program." Isle Royale Boaters Ass'n v. Norton , 154 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1130 (W.D. Mich. 2001) (quoting Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Appalachian Reg'l Comm'n , 677 F.2d 883, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ). It may......
-
United States v. Snarr
...agency or department of the federal government, other than the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.” Isle Royale Boaters Ass'n v. Norton, 154 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1135 (W.D.Mich.2001) (holding that plaintiffs could not sue the National Park Service, “a unit of the federal government, for dis......
-
Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm'r of the Fed. Highway Admin.
...was an “abuse of discretion.” Kentucky ex rel., Beshear v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 714, 718 (6th Cir.1981); Isle Royale Boaters Ass'n v. Norton, 154 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1127 (W.D.Mich.2001); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.a. Consideration of Alternatives Here, the FHWA considered a reasonable range of alterna......