Wilderness Watch v. Sarah Creachbaum ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 19 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WILDERNESS WATCH, INC.,                         No. 17-35117
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-CV-5771-RBL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SARA CREACHBAUM, in her official
    capacity as the Superintendent of the
    Olympic National Park, and NATIONAL
    PARK SERVICE,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC
    PRESERVATION, WASHINGTON
    TRUST FOR HISTORIC
    PRESERVATION, and FRIENDS OF
    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK,
    Intervenors-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted July 9, 2018
    Seattle, Washington
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** Senior
    District Judge.
    Plaintiff-Appellant Wilderness Watch, Inc. (“Wilderness Watch”) appeals
    from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees
    Sarah Creachbaum and the National Park Service (the “Park Service”) on
    Wilderness Watch’s claim that the Park Service’s rehabilitation of five historically
    significant structures in the Olympic Wilderness violated the Administrative
    Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-33. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the district court’s decision de
    novo, see Native Ecosystems Council v. Dombeck, 
    304 F.3d 886
    , 891 (9th Cir.
    2002), we affirm.
    Under the APA, a court may “set aside agency action” only if it determines
    that the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
    in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). If the Park Service’s actions are
    unambiguously contrary to the language of the Wilderness Act, then we must “give
    effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
    Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 
    467 U.S. 837
    , 843 (1984). However, if the Act is
    ambiguous with respect to the agency’s decision, then, as all parties agree, so-
    **
    The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for
    the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    2
    called Skidmore deference applies. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 
    323 U.S. 134
    (1944);
    United States v. Mead Corp., 
    533 U.S. 218
    , 227-28 (2001).
    The provision at issue here is the Wilderness Act’s prohibition on
    “structure[s]” and “installation[s]” within any wilderness area “except as necessary
    to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of
    this chapter.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c).
    1. Wilderness Watch first argues that the Park Service’s rehabilitation of the
    five structures is prohibited by the unambiguous language of 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c),
    because preserving man-made structures serves no “purpose” of the Wilderness
    Act. The Park Service asserts that its restoration of the five structures, each of
    which is either listed on the National Historic Register or eligible for listing, was in
    service of Congress’s direction that wilderness areas be “devoted” to the public
    purpose of “historical use.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b).
    Binding Ninth Circuit precedent compels the conclusion that “historical use”
    is ambiguous. Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 
    629 F.3d 1024
    (9th Cir. 2010) [hereinafter Kofa]. In Kofa, we held that the Wilderness Act gives
    agencies “conflicting policy directives” by directing them to preserve wilderness
    while “at the same time providing for ‘recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
    conservation, and historical use,’” 
    id. (quoting 16
    U.S.C. § 1133(b)), and that this
    conflict rendered “conservation” ambiguous. Although Kofa only addressed
    3
    whether “conservation” is ambiguous, there is no reason why, under its logic,
    “historical use” should be treated differently from “conservation”; they are both
    contained within the same series in § 1133(b) and “historical use” is in no less
    tension with wilderness here than “conservation” was in Kofa.
    Therefore, Skidmore deference applies. Under Skidmore, the deference
    accorded to agency interpretation depends on “the thoroughness evident in [the
    agency’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier
    and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if
    lacking power to control.” 
    Mead, 533 U.S. at 228
    (quoting 
    Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140
    ). Considering all these factors, the Park Service’s interpretation of “historical
    use” as inclusive of historical preservation is entitled to deference. For example,
    the Park Service has a longstanding commitment to preserving historic structures
    while, at the same time, taking wilderness concerns into account.
    2. Wilderness Watch alternatively argues that the Park Service’s decision to
    repair or rebuild the structures in the wilderness was not the minimum necessary to
    serve the purpose of historical use. See 
    Kofa, 629 F.3d at 1036-37
    . We disagree.
    The Park Service performed individualized assessments for each structure,
    culminating in Minimum Requirement Worksheets, which explained why the on-
    site rehabilitation work was required to serve historic preservation goals and
    determining which tools and techniques for rehabilitation were the minimum
    4
    necessary. While the Park Service may not have fully considered the alternative
    means of preservation suggested by Wilderness Watch, such as reconstructing the
    structures outside the wilderness, such consideration was not necessary since it is
    clear that maintaining these structures in their original locations was essential to
    preserving their historical value.1
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    The motion of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks to file a brief as
    amicus curiae is hereby granted.
    5