Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Kimbell
Decision Date | 28 September 2007 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 06-3357 (JRT/RLE). |
Citation | 516 F.Supp.2d 982 |
Parties | IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC.; Wilderness Watch; Sierra Club Northstar Chapter; and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Plaintiff's, v. Abigail KIMBELL, Chief of the United States Forest Service, and Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendants, and Cook County, Conservationists with Common Sense, and Arrowhead Coalition for Multiple Use, Intervenors. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Kristen M. Gast, Brian B. O'Neill, Richard A. Duncan, and Jonathan W. Dettmann, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiff's.
Patricia R. Cangemi, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for defendants.
David R. Oberstar, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, PA, Duluth, MN, for intervenors.
Plaintiff's challenge a decision of the United States Forest Service ("Forest Service" or "USFS") to construct a snowmobile trail connecting McFarland Lake to South Fowl Lake along a route that is adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ("BWCAW") in northeastern Minnesota. Plaintiff's further challenge the Forest Service's failure to set motorboat quotas for South and North Fowl Lakes. Plaintiff's argue that the Forest Service's actions violate the Wilderness Act, the BWCAW Act, the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for summary judgment.
South and North Fowl Lakes are the eastern-most lakes in a chain of lakes along the border between northeast Minnesota and Canada. In 2003, the Forest Service identified an unlawful snowmobile route, known locally as the Tilbury Trail, located in the Superior National Forest. The Tilbury. Trail connected McFarland Lake in the west to South Fowl Lake in the east. Because the trail encroached on Royal Lake and Royal River, located inside the Boundary Waters wilderness area along the northern edge of the trail, the Forest Service decided to close the Tilbury Trail. Following closure of the trail, the only available motorized access route to South Fowl Lake was Cook County Road 16. Snowrnobilers wishing to access South Fowl Lake thus had to share a steep and potentially dangerous road with cars and trucks. Because the Forest Service wished to develop a safe alternative route that would provide public snowmobile access to the South Fowl Lake, the Forest Service proposed construction of the South Fowl Snowmobile Trail (the "South Fowl Trail"), connecting McFarland Lake to South Fowl Lake along the same general route as the Tilbury Trail.
In the summer of 2003, the Forest Service began public discussions and field research on the proposed trail, culminating in a draft proposal for the South Fowl Trail that identified several alternative snowmobile routes. In November 2005, the Forest Service released an environmental assessment ("EA") for the proposed South Fowl Trail. The EA identified four action alternatives and one no-action alternative. The four action alternatives proposed different trail routes between McFarland Lake and South Fowl Lake, three of which involved trails along existing roadways not closer than one-half mile from the BWCAW boundary at Royal Lake. The Alternative 2 route was the northernmost route of the proposed alternatives. The trail proposed in Alternative 2 would involve the construction of 2.2 miles of new snowmobile trail. A segment of the trail would ascend to a bench along a steep ridge that is immediately adjacent to designated wilderness area, overlooking both Royal River and Royal Lake.
The EA considered the potential impact of each of the proposed alternatives on the surrounding area, including the impact on sensitive flora, the cumulative effects resulting from the construction of a new snowmobile trail, and the visual and sound impacts caused by snowmobile traffic. The EA determined that the potential impact of the Alternative 2 trail on sensitive flora was not significant, based on an analysis of potential impacts to 85 sensitive species contained in the accompanying Biological Evaluation ("BE"). The EA also analyzed potential cumulative effects of off-highway and offseason recreational use, as well as the potential for increased snowmobile traffic as a result of the new trail. The EA recognized the possibility of increased illegal recreational use resulting from the construction of a new snowmobile trail. However, the EA noted that the project area is not a popular destination for off-highway vehicles, and that the. Alternative 2 trail route was unlikely to result in additional incursions into adjoining wilderness because of the steep terrain separating the trail from the wilderness. The EA also evaluated the effectiveness of mitigation measures that would be employed to reduce off-highway and off-season recreational use.
Finally, the EA considered the potential visual and sound impact caused by each proposed trail. The EA found that the sound of snowmobile traffic from Alternative 2 would carry directly into the adjoining wilderness, and that intervening deciduous trees would do little to reduce the sound. While noting that sound measurements could be calculated at various locations within the wilderness, the EA stated that "such detailed data appears to be moot." (Admin.Rec.157.) Thus, because wilderness visitors would consider any sight or sound from snowmobiles to be negative, the EA dispensed with any quantitative measurements of the sound impact in the wilderness.
Based on the analysis set forth in the EA, the Forest Service issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact ("DN/FONSI") on February 21, 2006, approving selection of Alternative 2 for the South Fowl Trail. The Forest Service determined that a more complete analysis of the environmental effects in an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") was unnecessary because construction of the South Fowl Trail along the Alternative 2 route was not a "major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Regarding sound impact, the FONSI stated that the decibel level of a snowmobile in the adjoining wilderness, at a distance of 600-800 feet from the proposed route, would be approximately 49 decibels. The FONSI concluded that this decibel level was not significant.
Several environmental groups appealed the DN/FONSI. On May 18, 2006, a Forest Service Appeal Reviewing Officer recommended that the selection of Alternative 2 as set forth in the DN/FONSI be affirmed, and the Forest Supervisor subsequently adopted the recommendation.
Plaintiff's filed this lawsuit on August 17, 2006. Count I of the Complaint alleges that the proposed Forest Service action violates the Wilderness Act and the BWCAW Act because the South Fowl Trail would deposit riders at the South Fowl Lake, which plaintiff's contend is located within the wilderness area. Count II alleges that the Forest Service has failed to implement motorboat quotas on North and South Fowl Lakes in violation of § 4(f) of the BWCAW Act. Count III alleges that the South Fowl Trail will project the sights and sounds of snowmobiles into the wilderness area in violation of § 4(b) of the Wilderness Act. Count IV alleges that the South Fowl trail will harm threatened species and increase the cumulative amount of trails in violation of the National Forest Management Act. Finally, Count V alleges that the Forest Service violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS for the proposed trail. Plaintiff's, defendants, and intervenors filed cross-motions for summary judgment on each of plaintiff's claims.
The Court's review of agency decisions is limited by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Plaintiff's bring this action under §§ 706(2)(A) and 706(1) of the APA. Section 706(2)(A) requires courts to overturn an agency decision that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, as long as the agency's determination is supported by any rational basis. Section 706(1) provides that 5 U.S.C. § 706. Agencies must be compelled to act where the agency fails to carry out a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty. Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178, 1187-88 (10th Cir.1999).
Plaintiff's contend that the South Fowl Trail will deposit snowmobile riders in designated wilderness area in violation of the BWCAW Act and the Wilderness Act. Plaintiff's also argue that the Forest Service has failed to implement motorboat quotas on the Fowl Lakes in violation of § 4(f) of the BWCAW Act. Neither side disputes that snowmobiles are banned within the BWCAW, with limited exceptions not including the Fowl Lakes. Under § 4(e) of the BWCAW Act, "[t]he use of snowmobiles in the wilderness designated by this Act is not permitted." Pub.L. No. 95-495, § 4(e). Section 4(e) goes on to list several exceptions to the general snowmobile ban, but does not include the Fowl Lakes. Similarly, the Wilderness Act provides that "there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats" within wilderness areas....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
South Carolina v. United States
...see Irshad v. Napolitano , No. 8:12cv173, 2012 WL 4593391, at *11 n.7 (D. Neb. Oct. 2, 2012) ; Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Kimbell , 516 F.Supp.2d 982, 986 (D. Minn. 2007) ; cf. Christopher Vill., Ltd. P'ship v. Retsinas , 190 F.3d 310, 316 n.8 (5th Cir. 1999).The treatment of Forest Guar......
-
Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. U.S. Forest Serv.
...trail “along a route that is adjacent to the” BWCAW violated the Wilderness Act, the BWCAW Act, and other federal statutes. 516 F.Supp.2d 982, 984 (D.Minn.2007). The court stated that “the plain language of § 4(b) makes no distinction based on the source of the allegedly degrading agency ac......
-
Kakaygeesick v. Salazar
...558 F.3d 815, 825 n. 5 (8th Cir.2009); Culpepper v. Schafer, 548 F.3d 1119, 1122 (8th Cir.2008); Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. v. Kimbell, 516 F.Supp.2d 982, 991 (D.Minn.2007). We find nothing about the ALJ's implicit interpretation of the referenced regulations to be either "plainly......
-
Vermonters for a Clean Env't, Inc. v. Madrid
...areas, the parties point the Court to a decision of the District Court for the District of Minnesota, Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Kimbell, 516 F.Supp.2d 982 (D.Minn.2007). The Izaak Walton League court noted “a per se ban on all agency activity having some impact on the adjoining [ ] wild......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND AND RESOURCE LAW IN THE 21ST CENTURY
...98 Stat. 300 (1984); Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-550, 98 Stat. 1626 (1984); see also Isaak Walton League v. Kimbell, 516 F.Supp.2d 982 (D. Minn. 2007); Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. Rogers, 141 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1998); Northwest Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Agricultur......
-
THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
...to the Wilderness Act to ascertain the purpose behind the two wilderness acts. Id. (354) Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 516 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986, 989 (D. Minn. 2007). See also Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Tidwell, No. 06-3357 (JRT/LIB), 2015 WL 632140, at *10, *15 (D. M......
-
Chapter 7 INTEGRATION OF ESG CONSIDERATIONS INTO MINING PROJECTS ON FEDERAL OR STATE LANDS TO ALIGN WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES, GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS, AND PROJECT GOALS
...Tribal court proceedings regarding DNR's grant of water appropriation permits).[64] Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. Kimbell, 516 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Minn. 2007), judgment entered, No. CIV. 06-3357 JRT/RLE, 2008 WL 141728 (D. Minn. Jan. 11, 2008), amended, No. CV 06-3357 (JRT/RLE), 2008 ......