VOYAGEURS NAT. PARK ASS'N v. Arnett, Civ. No. 3-84-261.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3-84-261.
• Citation: 609 F. Supp. 532
• Parties: VOYAGEURS NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, Sierra Club, National Parks and Conservation Association, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Animals and Their Environment, Help Our Wolves Live, Inc., the International Ecology Society, and the National Audubon Society, Plaintiffs, v. G. Ray ARNETT as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Department of Interior, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

609 F. Supp. 532

VOYAGEURS NATIONAL PARK ASSOCIATION DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, Sierra Club, National Parks and Conservation Association, Friends of the Earth, Friends of Animals and Their Environment, Help Our Wolves Live, Inc., the International Ecology Society, and the National Audubon Society, Plaintiffs, v. G. Ray ARNETT as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Department of Interior, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Defendants.

Civ. No. 3-84-261.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

March 6, 1985.

Brian B. O'Neill, Amy B. Bromberg, and Cynthia Pope, law student, Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.

Lisa Hemmer, Washington, D.C., and Jon Hopeman, Minneapolis, Minn., for G. Ray Arnett and the Dept. of Interior.

Philip J. Olfelt, and C. Paul Farici, St. Paul, Minn., for the Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RENNER, District Judge.

Before the Court are 1) plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Complaint; 2) defendant Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief; and 3) defendants G. Ray Arnett and the Department of Interior's motion for summary judgment. The Court, having accepted affidavits and exhibits on these matters, will treat all the motions as requesting summary judgment.

FACTS

Plaintiffs are nine environmental organizations challenging the federal approval of a state wildlife management plan governing the eastern portion of Black Bay in Rainy Lake in the state of Minnesota. The one thousand acre area at the eastern end of Black Bay is known as the Gold Portage area. It consists primarily of water, including only about thirty acres of dry land. H.Rep. No. 871, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 3 (1982) hereinafter cited as "House Report". This tract of land and water was once a part of Voyageurs National Park (hereinafter "the Park" or "Voyageurs").

The recent history of the Gold Portage area lends perspective to this controversy. In 1971, Congress authorized Voyageurs National Park. See Pub.L. No. 91-661, 84 Stat. 1970-1973, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 160-160k (West 1973). Before the Park could be formally established, Congress required the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "the State") to donate to the United States all State lands within the proposed park boundaries. Id. § 160a (West Supp.1984). The Gold Portage region was part of these lands. In 1975, Minnesota completed the transfer of its lands to the federal government, and the Secretary of Interior (hereinafter "the Secretary") formally established Voyageurs National Park. See Minn.Stat. § 84B.01-.10 (1984); 40 Fed.Reg. 15,921-15,922 (April 8, 1975).

Inclusion of the Gold Portage region within the Park boundaries generated extensive controversy. House Report at 3. Apparently, an early version of a map representing the proposed Voyageurs National Park excluded this area and led some people to believe it would not become part of the Park. Public Land Management Policy: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Public Lands and National Parks of the Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 11 (1982).

Once it became part of Voyageurs, National Park regulations prohibited all hunting and trapping there. 36 C.F.R. §§ 2.2, 2.4 (1984). Since the eastern end of Black Bay was reputedly one of the few good duck hunting spots in the county, local interests were, from the beginning, disgruntled with the duck hunting prohibition. Letter to George B. Hertzog from Robert L. Herbst (April 13, 1972). The federal government's authority to regulate hunting on the bay was challenged, without success. See United States v. Brown, 431 F.Supp. 56 (D.Minn.1976), aff'd, 552 F.2d 817 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 2666, 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977). Thereafter, the duck hunting controversy continued to inhibit the development of the Park.

In an attempt to eliminate the dispute, Congress enacted the Boundary Revision Act (hereinafter "the Act"). Act of Jan. 3, 1983, Pub.L. No. 97-405, 96 Stat. 2028, 16 U.S.C.A. § 160a-1 (West Supp.1984). The Act deleted the one thousand acre region of Black Bay from the Park and transferred it back to the State. Id. § 160a-1(b)(1)(E). In return, Minnesota gave other lands to the United States for inclusion in Voyageurs. Id. § 160a-1(b)(1)(C), (D).

Before the Gold Portage tract could be transferred to the State, the Act required that the State enter into an agreement satisfactory to the Secretary that:

(i) the State has established a wildlife management area in the area authorized to be deleted and conveyed to the State by paragraph (1)(E);

(ii) the State has prepared a plan acceptable to the Secretary to manage all the waters of and State lands riparian to Black Bay (including all of the State-owned lands and waters of Rainy Lake) to preserve to the fullest extent possible the purposes for which the park was established.

Id. § 160a-1(b)(2)(B)(i), (ii). Paragraph (1)(E), requiring the wildlife management area, refers to the one thousand acres of Black Bay to be conveyed to the State.

On September 27, 1984, the Secretary (acting through the Midwest Regional Director of the National Park Service) entered into an agreement with the State pursuant to section 160a.¹ The wildlife management plan (hereinafter "the Plan") submitted under the agreement permitted duck hunting during its established seasons. The plan also permitted trapping, stating as follows:

Furbearers may only be taken by trapping during the established seasons within the established zones. Unprotected mammals may only be taken during an open trapping season for any protected species, but only during such hours and dates and by the same methods as allowed for taking protected species. The Park Service and the DNR will monitor trapping and its effects on animal populations, including incidental taking of animals for which there is no open season. If it is determined that trapping results in significant adverse effects on these populations within Voyageurs National Park, the Commissioner will further limit or prohibit trapping by order.

State of Minnesota, Dep't of Natural Resources, Commissioner's Order No. 2162 (September 9, 1983) (emphasis supplied).

CLAIMS OF PARTIES

In Count One (I) of their Complaint, plaintiffs allege the Secretary violated the Boundary Revision Act by approving a wildlife management plan which permitted trapping in the Gold Portage area and the remainder of Black Bay. During argument, plaintiffs narrowed their request to one for declaratory relief as to the Gold Portage area. Plaintiffs request judgment declaring that the Secretary violated the Act. In Count Three (III) of the Complaint,² plaintiffs allege that the Secretary's approval of the Plan was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-706 (West 1977). Finally, plaintiffs allege that the Environmental Assessment of the wildlife management plan was contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4321-4370a (West 1977 & Supp.1984) and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1517.7 (1984).

Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on all counts of the Complaint. They argue that the agreement between the Secretary and the State is lawful and consistent with congressional intent. Defendants further assert that the actions of the Secretary and the Fish and Wildlife Service were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Finally, defendants claim that the Environmental Assessment's finding of no significant environmental consequences was not unreasonable.

ANALYSIS

In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the Court must determine whether there is any issue of material fact precluding such judgment and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As to Count One (I), the parties do not dispute the facts but disagree as to their interpretations of the Boundary Revision Act. Plaintiffs reason that by permitting trapping, the Plan violates the Act because it does not "complement to the fullest extent possible the purposes for which the Park was established." See 16 U.S.C.A. § 160a-1(b)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs construe the clear intent of Congress to forbid all hunting and trapping within the Gold Portage area except duck hunting. Defendants argue that Congress left approval of the Plan's hunting and trapping provisions to the Secretary's discretion. Defendants contend that the Act, on its face, does not prohibit trapping and that park purposes do not specifically preclude trapping. Furthermore, defendants interpret Congress' intent as permitting a wildlife management plan that allows trapping.

1. Facial Analysis

A de novo standard of review is to be applied to agency interpretations of questions of law, such as the interpretation of a statute. First National Bank in Sioux Falls v. National Bank of South Dakota, 667 F.2d 708, 711 (8th Cir.1981). The starting point for the statutory analysis must be the plain language of the statute itself. United States Marshal Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1056 (8th Cir.1984) (citing Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, ___, 104 S.Ct. 1519, 1523, 79 L.Ed.2d 860 (1984); United States v. Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, ___, 104 S.Ct. 1488, 1492, 79 L.Ed.2d 814 (1984)). If the language is unambiguous, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary, the language is usually considered conclusive. Id. (citing Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 110, 103 S.Ct. 986, 990, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983)).

As to the thousand acres involved in this dispute, the Act required two things. First, the State must establish a "wildlife management area" in the Gold Portage region. 16 U.S.C.A. § 160a-1(b)(2)(B)(i). Second, the State must develop

a plan acceptable to the Secretary to manage

...