## Facts

- The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge includes a large federally designated wilderness area in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona, with harsh, arid conditions.
- Desert bighorn sheep inhabit the area; FWS observed a population decline and identified water availability as an important factor, without definitively establishing the decline’s cause.
- Internal agency materials discussed multiple possible responses, including changes to hunting, predator management, trail closures, ending relocations, and constructing artificial water catchments.
- In 2007, FWS constructed two artificial water structures (Yaqui and McPherson tanks) inside the Kofa Wilderness to increase water availability for bighorn sheep.
- Environmental organizations sued, alleging the structures violated the Wilderness Act’s prohibition on “any structure or installation” in wilderness, except as “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of” the Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment to FWS, finding the agency had rationally concluded the structures fell within the statutory exception.

## Issues

1. Whether constructing permanent water structures inside a designated wilderness area fits the Wilderness Act’s narrow exception permitting otherwise prohibited structures only when “necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of” the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c).
2. Whether the administrative record sufficiently supported FWS’s “necessity” determination, given documented alternatives and the Act’s preservation purpose.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for FWS and remanded.
- The court held the administrative record did not support the conclusion that the in-wilderness water structures were “necessary” within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c).
- The court reasoned that FWS materials identified alternatives and even suggested locating developments outside the wilderness, undermining a claim that in-wilderness structures were required rather than merely beneficial.
- The court rejected reliance on generalized wildlife-management goals absent a reasoned explanation connecting the structures to the Wilderness Act’s purpose and to “minimum requirements” for administration.
- A dissent would have deferred to FWS’s technical judgment that the structures were necessary to manage the refuge and conserve bighorn sheep.

## Legal Principles

- The Wilderness Act establishes a general bar on structures or installations in designated wilderness; the “minimum requirements” exception is narrow and demands a showing of true necessity.
- “Necessary” requires more than convenience or incremental benefit; an agency must demonstrate that the action is required to administer the area consistent with the Act’s wilderness-preservation purposes.
- An agency must provide a reasoned, record-based explanation, including engagement with obvious, less intrusive alternatives, before invoking the § 1133(c) exception.
- Wildlife management objectives cannot displace the Act’s core mandate to preserve wilderness character; interventions must be justified as consistent with maintaining wilderness as “untrammeled by man.”
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, courts will not uphold an agency’s necessity finding when the agency’s own record fails to support it or points to feasible options that avoid violating the statutory prohibition.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that FWS could not rely on a thin or contradictory record to justify permanent artificial water developments inside designated wilderness and required a documented, reasoned showing that such structures are necessary to meet minimum administrative requirements consistent with the Wilderness Act’s preservation purpose.


Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 629 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010)