729 F.3d 967
9th Cir.2013Background
- Drakes Bay seeks a new 10-year SUP under §124 despite its expiration in 2012.
- Section 124 authorizes, but does not require, the Secretary to issue an extension, with a notwithstanding clause.
- Point Reyes Wilderness Act designated wilderness and created a framework for potential wilderness; some lands carry California rights.
- Drakes Estero’s 40-year Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO) expired 11/30/2012; sale to Drakes Bay followed with knowledge of expiration.
- NAS/DEIS process evaluated environmental tradeoffs; NAS found substantial uncertainty in scientific data.
- Secretary let the permit expire, citing wilderness policy and legal constraints, and district court denied injunctive relief; on appeal, court reviews statutory interpretation and NEPA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §124’s notwithstanding clause allows review of the Secretary’s discretionary decision | Drakes Bay argues §124 bars review of discretion due to “notwithstanding” | Negates barriers but permits review for legal mandates | Court can review for legal mandates, not the ultimate discretion |
| Whether the Secretary violated NEPA or its procedures | Drakes Bay asserts NEPA required comprehensive EIS and procedural compliance | EIS was prepared and any flaws were harmless or non-prejudicial | NEPA compliance deemed adequate; any errors non-prejudicial or harmless |
| Whether the Secretary correctly construed Section 124 and did not rely on misinterpretation of wilderness law | Drakes Bay contends §124 overrides but relies on misinterpretation of wilderness acts | Secretary’s decision balanced policy with §124 authority | Court upholds Secretary’s interpretation as within §124 authority |
| Whether the decision to let the permit expire was arbitrary or capricious under APA | Decision grounded in misinterpretation of wilderness act, improper factors | Decision grounded in policy and expert judgment; supported by record | Held not arbitrary or capricious under APA; deference to agency |
Key Cases Cited
- Ness Inv. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Forest Serv., 512 F.2d 706 (9th Cir.1975) (review for abuse of discretion when legal mandates exist)
- Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994) (legislative history cannot override statutory text; not a basis to constrain statute)
- Novak v. United States, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2007) (notwithstanding clause sweep aside conflicting laws; interpretive framework)
- Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v. United States, 343 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.2003) (statutory review limits when agency has discretion under law)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (agency decisions must be discernible though not always perfectly clear)
- Douglas County v. Babbitt, 944 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.1995) (NEPA analysis and environmental protections context)