ELR Citation: ELR 20219
No(s). 97-16703 (9th Cir. Sep 21, 1998)

The court holds that the National Park Service (NPS) complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in deciding to construct a public clubhouse at the Presidio golf course in San Francisco, California. The court first holds that a private golf club has standing to challenge the NPS' decision to construct the clubhouse. The club's interests in maintaining its historic clubhouse and the surrounding environment in a fashion suitable for the game of golf are arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by NEPA and the NHPA. In addition, the club can sue in its representative capacity. And although many members already left the club when the course became public, it is likely that once the new public clubhouse is completed, the club will lose more members who joined the club for its facilities rather than its special rights to use the golf course. Such additional membership losses could prove fatal to the golf club and constitute a future injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the NPS' alleged procedural violations.

The court next holds that the NPS' environmental assessment (EA) was adequate. Although the NPS did not consider "cooperative use" arrangements as alternatives to building a new clubhouse, it fulfilled its duties under NEPA by considering other reasonable alternatives that allowed the NPS to reach a reasoned choice. Moreover, the club's contention that the NPS decided to build the new clubhouse before preparing an EA to assess that decision simply reflects a confidence on the part of the NPS that the proposed plan would be adopted, which is permissible. The court then holds that the NPS did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in assessing the significance of any impact on the clubhouse and in deciding not to prepare an environmental impact statement. The NPS considered impacts on historical resources, and the EA is replete with considerations of the unique characteristics of the golf course and its ecological resources. The NPS' responses to public comments reflect its commitment to considering suggestions of all types, and there is no indication that the effects on the human environment wrought by replacing the existing golf course buildings with a new public clubhouse are unique, unknown, or highly uncertain. Moreover, because the public clubhouse is a unique, independent project, it will not serve to establish any precedent for what constitutes a sufficient EA. The court further holds that it was not arbitrary or capricious for the NPS not to take fuller account of the remote environmental effects on the historic private clubhouse that might result from the economic impact of competition from the new public clubhouse.

The court then holds that the NPS complied with the NHPA in considering the views of interested parties. The NPS was not required to consult with interested persons because no adverse effect on a historic property was found. Last, the court holds that the district court did not err by relying on the declaration of an NPS employee that was prepared for litigation purposes. The employee's affidavit explained the NPS' prior analyses of the possibility of using the private clubhouse, and the district court found it helpful.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Nicholas C. Yost
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
685 Market St., 10th Fl., San Francisco CA 94105
(415) 882-5000

Counsel for Defendants
Ronald M. Spritzer
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Before Choy and Pregerson, JJ.