## Facts

- Cumberland Island National Seashore in Georgia contains land designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act.
- After designation, the National Park Service (NPS) continued using motor vehicles, including a 15-passenger van, on an interior road crossing the wilderness.
- NPS used these vehicles to shuttle members of the general public through the wilderness to reach Plum Orchard, a historic mansion located outside the wilderness boundary, and other non-wilderness destinations.
- Wilderness Watch challenged the motorized visitor-transport program as inconsistent with the Wilderness Act’s general ban on motor vehicles in wilderness.
- Wilderness Watch also alleged NPS implemented the program without completing and documenting required NEPA review (e.g., an EA or EIS) and without a properly supported categorical exclusion determination.
- Wilderness Watch further alleged NPS relied on an advisory body formed without compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to NPS on the Wilderness Act, NEPA, and related FACA claims concerning NPS’s own visitor transport; other issues involving a private inn’s tours were remanded to the agency and were not part of the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether NPS’s routine use of motor vehicles to shuttle tourists across designated wilderness falls within the Wilderness Act exception allowing motorized use only when necessary to meet minimum requirements for administering the wilderness.
2. Whether NPS violated NEPA by initiating the motorized visitor-transport program without contemporaneous, documented environmental analysis, and whether NPS could rely on a categorical exclusion absent supporting record documentation.
3. Whether NPS’s use of an advisory group violated FACA’s procedural requirements in a manner affecting the legality of the challenged transportation program.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the summary judgment for NPS and remanded.
- The court held the Wilderness Act generally prohibits motor vehicles in wilderness and that shuttling tourists did not qualify as motorized use “necessary” for minimum administration of the area as wilderness.
- The court held NPS did not comply with NEPA because it failed to document consideration of environmental effects before implementing the program and did not adequately support any categorical exclusion with contemporaneous record evidence.
- The appellate disposition required further proceedings consistent with these statutory interpretations.

## Legal Principles

- In designated wilderness, motorized vehicle use is prohibited unless it is necessary to meet minimum requirements for administering the area for Wilderness Act purposes; visitor convenience and routine tourist transport do not satisfy this exception.
- Wilderness Act administration focuses on preserving wilderness character and unimpaired conditions for future use, not providing mechanized access for recreation or interpretation.
- NEPA requires agencies to take and document a pre-decisional “hard look” at environmental consequences for actions with potential environmental effects.
- Reliance on a categorical exclusion must be supported by a contemporaneous determination and an administrative record that permits meaningful judicial review under the APA; post hoc invocation without documentation is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that NPS’s regular motorized shuttling of tourists through a designated wilderness area was unlawful under the Wilderness Act’s narrow exception for minimum administrative needs and that NPS also violated NEPA by failing to document environmental review or a valid categorical exclusion before implementing the program.


Wilderness Watch v. Mainella, 375 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2004)