National Park Service May Relocate Docks

Isle Royale Boaters Association v. Norton, 303 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2003).

Joseph M. Long, 3L

The Sixth Circuit recently determined that the section of the National Park Service’s (NPS) General Management Plan for Isle Royale National Park for the relocation of docks throughout the park was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate the Wilderness Act or the Organic Act of 1916.

The Challenge
In August 1998, Isle Royale Boaters Association (IRBA) challenged the General Management Plan (GMP) for Isle Royale National Park and Wilderness Area. The GMP was designed to minimize intrusive noise from motorized water craft use within the park and wilderness area by removing docks from non-motorized use areas and relocating and adding docks in areas not frequented by non-motorized park users. The IRBA argued that the elimination of these docks from their original locations limited or denied boater access to the trail system and various shelter areas located upon the main island of Isle Royal National Park.

The GMP
Isle Royale was designated as a national park in 1931 and a national wilderness area in 1976. Because of the park’s dual designation, the actions of the NPS must comply with both the NPS’s Organic Act and the Wilderness Act. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency action may be set aside by a court if it is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”1
The Sixth Circuit first addressed the authority of the NPS to relocate docks solely within the area of Isle Royale designated as national parkland. Such actions are subject to regulation under the Organic Act of 1916. The court determined that the Organic Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the enjoyment of the national parks, but does not demand the provision of docks or boat access. The court noted that removing docks actually “helps to conserve scenery and moving docks to reduce noise on the trails facilitates the enjoyment of the scenery, natural objects, and wildlife that the island offers” consistent with Congress’s mandate under the Organic Act.2 The NPS’s decision to relocate the docks was, therefore, not arbitrary or capricious.

The court next addressed the NPS’s actions in the wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are to be managed “for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.”3 The NPS in managing Isle Royale has increased obligations regarding boater access in such areas because “greater protections apply to wilderness areas than to ordinary parklands.”4 Under the Wilderness Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the discretion either to ban motorboats, structures, and installations or allow pre-existing motorboat use to continue.5 The court found that the GMP furthers the Wilderness Act’s goal of ensuring that “the Earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man” and that the land “retains its primeval character.”6

Conclusion
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the NPS, finding that separating motorized and non-motorized activity within Isle Royale National Park is supported by statute and is not arbitrary or capricious.

ENDNOTES
1. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2003).
2. Isle Royale Boaters Ass’n v. Norton, 303 F. 3d 777, 782 (6th Cir. 2003).
3. 16 U.S.C. § 1131(a) (2003).
4. Alaska Wildlife Alliance v. Jensen, 103 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 1997).
5. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1311(c), 1311(d)(1) (2003).
6. 16 U.S.C. § 1311(c) (2003).

University of Mississippi