This Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is very
negative as to horse use in Wilderness areas. It involves commercial use, but
you should be aware of the possible impact of this ruling on public use.
The last paragraph is a note from the anti-horse group
(Wilderness Watch) that pushed the case.
Jim, Sun of Dimanche+, and Mahada Magic
Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Opinion in the
case of High Sierra Hikers Assn., et al v. Blackwell. It is an
important ruling for Wilderness and a big win for the John Muir and
Ansel Adams Wildernesses. The Opinion involved both NEPA claims and,
most importantly, Wilderness Act claims.
The case involved a challenge by HSHA, Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics and Wilderness Watch to the Forest Service's
administration of commercial pack stations that operate in these
Wildernesses. Our groups challenged the FS' actions because the
agency continued to issue special use permits to the packstations
without analyzing the impacts of those operations on the Wilderness,
the damage those operations are doing to the areas' wilderness
character, or the extent to which there is a need for commercial
services in the area.
In 2002, the district court ruled in our favor on the NEPA claims and
ordered the FS to prepare an EIS. The district court also ordered
the Forest Service to reduce the number of service days available to
the pack stations and to reduce the number of stock in each group
until the EIS is completed. The district court denied our Wilderness
Act claims holding that the Forest Service's "needs assessment" for
commercial services was adequate and holding that while the level of
damage to the Wildernesses was "disturbing" and cause for concern,
that the Forest Service had discretion to determine how much damage
would be allowed.
The Forest Service appealed the district court's decision arguing
that the court overreached its bounds by ordering an EIS and by
limiting the amount of pack stock use in the Wilderness pending the
outcome of the analysis. Several packstations also intervened.
The 9th Circuit rejected the FS' appeal and upheld the district
court's ruling on the NEPA issues. It overturned the district court
on our Wilderness Act claims. It held that the FS failed to
determine the "extent" to which commercial services are
"necessary"
and to consider the effect of that determination on the Wilderness: "At best, when the Forest Service simply continued preexisting permit levels, it failed to balance the impact
that the level of commercial activity was having on the wilderness
character of the land. At worst, the Forest
Service elevated recreational activity over the long-term preservation of the
wilderness character of the land."
The 9th Circuit also rejected the lower court's finding that the FS
has discretion to permit the wilderness to be degraded. The Opinion
stressed that the Wilderness Act's "overarching
purpose" is "preserving the wilderness
character of the wilderness area" and
thus, "The Forest Service's
decision to grant permits at their pre-existing levels in the face of
documented damage resulting from overuse does not have rational
validity....Given the Wilderness Act's repeated emphasis of the administering
agency's responsibility to preserve and protect wilderness areas,
this decision cannot be reconciled with the Forest Service's
statutory responsibility."
Finally, the 9th Circuit remanded the case to the district court to
determine the appropriate relief under the Wilderness Act, "including whether remediation of any degradation
that has already occurred is appropriate."
A great day for Wilderness! Many thanks to Pete Frost (Western
Environmental Law Center) and Julia Olson who represented the
plaintiffs, and to Gary Guenther, the tireless volunteer and former
wilderness ranger who has spent years documenting the damage to these
areas and trying to get the Forest Service line officers to do
something. Maybe now they will.
