## Facts

- The Key West National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect native birds and later included federally designated wilderness subject to the Wilderness Act.
- A 1992 federal–state management agreement required special use permits for commercial use of refuge islands, evaluated case by case to limit harm to wilderness resources.
- McGrail & Rowley, Inc. operated commercial catamaran trips from Key West to Boca Grande Key for recreational beach visits and had used the island without a special use permit.
- Boca Grande Key had limited beach access and provided habitat for threatened and endangered species, including listed birds and nesting sea turtles.
- In 1994, McGrail & Rowley applied for a special use permit; the refuge manager denied the application as not compatible with refuge purposes and wilderness values, citing likely wildlife impacts and insufficient refuge resources to manage the use.
- McGrail & Rowley appealed; after initial delay, FWS offered an opportunity for an oral presentation and additional submissions, which the company did not pursue; the regional director affirmed the denial.
- Separately, Herbert Pontin received a notice of violation for trespass based on bringing passengers into refuge waters/areas without authorization.
- Plaintiffs sued federal officials, challenging the permit denial and the trespass notice; the court reviewed the agency actions on the administrative record under the APA.

## Issues

1. Whether FWS’s denial of the special use permit was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.
2. Whether FWS lawfully determined the proposed commercial activity was not compatible with refuge purposes and wilderness requirements.
3. Whether the trespass notice issued to Pontin was authorized and valid within the refuge’s jurisdiction and enforcement framework.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the defendants and upheld the permit denial.
- The court held the denial reflected reasoned decisionmaking tied to refuge purposes, wilderness values, anticipated wildlife impacts, and managerial capacity.
- The court rejected procedural challenges to the internal appeal, finding plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to present additional argument and evidence.
- The court sustained the trespass notice against Pontin, concluding FWS had lawful authority over the refuge area at issue and valid mechanisms to enforce trespass violations.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA review, a court asks whether the agency considered relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision; it does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s technical and scientific determinations.
- Uses of national wildlife refuges may be allowed only if found “compatible” with refuge purposes and governing refuge-system requirements; wilderness designations may further limit uses inconsistent with wilderness character.
- Anticipated impacts on wildlife and habitat, protection of wilderness values, and the agency’s capacity to monitor and manage the proposed activity are permissible considerations in compatibility determinations.
- An agency is not required to prove that lesser restrictions or mitigation measures would succeed before denying a specific proposed use as incompatible.
- Enforcement of refuge trespass prohibitions is valid when grounded in applicable refuge authority over the relevant lands/waters and implemented through lawful administrative procedures.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld FWS’s denial of a commercial special use permit for operations on a sensitive refuge wilderness island and sustained a related trespass enforcement action, holding that both agency actions were supported by the record and were not arbitrary or capricious under the APA.


McGrail & Rowley, Inc. v. Babbitt, 986 F. Supp. 1386 (S.D. Fla. 1997)