By Michael Howell
According to Stevensville District Ranger Dan Ritter, a recent Appellate Court ruling concerning the Gallatin National Forest’s Travel Management Plan has put the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Management Plan back on the drawing board.
The Montana Wilderness Association and several other entities sued the Gallatin National Forest claiming that its Travel Management Plan violated the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. That Act requires the Forest Service to ensure that current users of a wilderness study area are able to enjoy the wilderness character of the area as it existed in 1977, pending a congressional decision on whether to designate the area as wilderness. In this case, they argued, the Forest Service did not adequately explain how the 1977 wilderness character of the relevant study area, particularly the opportunities for solitude it offers, has been maintained despite an increase in the volume of motorized and mechanized recreation in the area. They conclude that the Forest Service’s adoption of the travel plan was arbitrary and capricious, and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
A separate case was filed by motorized users of the forest arguing the opposite and the cases were then combined in the lower court.
The court concluded that the Forest Service failed adequately to explain how the travel plan’s reconfiguration of the physical areas open to motorized and mechanized use satisfied the Wilderness Study Act’s mandate to maintain 1977 wilderness character, in light of acknowledged increases in use volume. The court recognized that the Service lacked complete historical data that would allow it to quantify the volume of use increase precisely, but held that the Service was nonetheless not permitted to ignore increased volume of use altogether. The court found that the Service had done so, and that the omission “render[ed] the decision arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the APA.
The court also ruled that, by asserting that the missing historical volume of use data were not relevant to its Study Act analysis, the Service violated its NEPA obligation to include in the FEIS “a statement of the relevance of . . . incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment.” The court enjoined the Service from continued implementation of the travel plan and remanded it back to the agency.
The 9th Circuit Court of appeals upheld the lower court ruling, stating, “We agree with the district court that the travel plan does not adequately address the Service’s Study Act obligation to maintain the study area’s 1977 wilderness character… The Service first erroneously determined that the Study Act does not require it to maintain the 1977 wilderness character of the study area for the enjoyment of the area’s current users. Then, based on its misinterpretation of the Study Act, the Service ignored the obvious impact of increased volume of motorized and mechanized use on current users’ ability to enjoy the study area’s 1977 wilderness character. Because the Service entirely failed to consider this important aspect of its Study Act obligation, the travel plan is arbitrary and capricious.”
But the Court of Appeals went on to say that, “although the Service must ensure that the study area’s overall 1977 wilderness character is not degraded, there is no requirement that it replicate 1977 conditions precisely. We recognize that the Service’s attempt to maintain 1977 wilderness character, including 1977 opportunities for solitude, may necessarily be approximate and qualitative.
“We also acknowledge that the Service does not possess complete historical data illustrating changes in the volume of recreational use in the study area over time. But the proper response to that problem is for the Service to do the best it can with the data it has, not to ignore the volume of use increase completely.”
According to Ritter, there are two Wilderness Study Areas included in the Bitterroot National Forest’s Travel Management Plan, the Blue Joint WSA and the Sapphire WSA. As a result of this ruling, he said, the agency is taking another look and doing further research into the historical use of the WSAs, especially the Sapphire WSA.