## Facts

- A developer planned the “Resort at Squaw Creek” in California, including an 18-hole golf course as a central amenity.
- Building the golf course required filling about eleven acres of wetlands.
- The developer sought and obtained a Clean Water Act § 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discharge fill into the wetlands.
- In evaluating alternatives, the Corps defined the project’s basic purpose as a self-contained destination alpine resort with an on-site 18-hole golf course integrated with the resort.
- An environmental plaintiff challenged the permit, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and the Corps’ regulations, primarily for failing to properly consider practicable alternatives and environmental consequences.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction to halt construction and granted partial summary judgment to the developer on the NEPA claims.
- The plaintiff appealed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against construction authorized by the § 404 permit.
2. Whether the plaintiff showed a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits that the Corps acted arbitrarily or capriciously under the APA in its Clean Water Act practicable-alternatives analysis.
3. Whether the plaintiff showed a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits that the Corps violated NEPA by inadequately analyzing environmental effects or reasonable alternatives.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court held the plaintiff failed to show a fair chance of success on the merits of the Clean Water Act and NEPA challenges.
- The court concluded the Corps reasonably evaluated project purpose and alternatives, and its permit decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- The court also upheld the district court’s equitable determination that the injunction factors did not justify halting construction.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Agency permitting decisions under the Clean Water Act and NEPA are reviewed under the APA and set aside only if arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.
- In alternatives analysis, the Corps may consider the applicant’s objectives and define a project’s purpose accordingly, but not so narrowly as to foreclose all alternatives.
- For Clean Water Act § 404 permitting, the Corps may reject alternatives that do not meet the project’s basic purpose or are not practicable, so long as the administrative record supports a rational explanation.
- NEPA requires consideration of environmental consequences and reasonable alternatives, but does not compel a particular substantive outcome; a broader public-interest review under the Clean Water Act may support the overall decision.
- A preliminary injunction requires, at minimum, a sufficient showing on merits-related questions and equitable factors (including irreparable harm and balance of hardships).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to enjoin a wetlands-fill golf course project, finding the Corps’ integrated definition of project purpose and its Clean Water Act/NEPA alternatives and public-interest analyses were supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious, leaving the plaintiff without the requisite showing for preliminary injunctive relief.


Sylvester v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 882 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1989)