SUPERIOR Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has denied the Division of Fish and Wildlife’s motion for remand and ordered DFW to issue a final decision on Alexandria Davis Steeley’s permit application within 20 days.
Judge Naraja issued the order on May 15, 2025.
On Feb. 10, 2023, Steeley submitted permit and clearance applications to the Division of Environmental Quality and DFW as prerequisites for clearing vegetation and rebuilding a residence on her property in Kagman, Saipan.
DFW conducted three biological surveys of the project site. While the first two surveys did not detect the Nightingale Reed Warbler, a third survey, using audio playback methodology, detected a vocal response attributed to the bird from across the street from the property.
Based on this third survey, DFW identified a 437-square-meter portion of the property as falling within a 50-meter buffer zone from the detection point, which was considered potential habitat for the bird. During the same survey period, DFW observed that vegetation had been cleared from a substantial portion of the property.
DFW determined that the unauthorized clearing may have resulted in habitat loss and potential disturbance to the bird. Following these findings, DFW issued a written notice outlining two recommended options for addressing the potential impacts.
On or about March 31, 2023, DFW suspended the permitting process pending further investigation into the bird’s habitat. Based on its recommendations and Steeley’s continued interest in proceeding with the project, DFW subsequently imposed a mitigation requirement as a condition of resuming permit review.
Specifically, on May 15, 2023, Steeley was directed to pay a mitigation fee into the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank or SUMB.
On July 27, 2023, Steeley filed a complaint for judicial review of agency action. Thereafter, on or about Aug. 9, 2023, the Department of Lands and Natural Resources issued a formal notice authorizing the sale of SUMB credits.
The notice established a minimum mitigation fee of $780.56 applicable to Steeley.
In her petition, Steeley named as respondents DLNR, DFW, Sylvan Igisomar, in his official capacity as DLNR secretary, and Manny Pangelinan, in his official capacity as DFW director.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Superior Court issued a dismissal order, dismissing certain claims but allowing Steeley to amend her petition.
In compliance, Steeley, represented by attorney Jeanne Rayphand, filed her amended petition on Nov. 6, 2023, challenging the procedural and substantive aspects of the permitting process and the SUMB credit assessment.
The respondents represented by Assistant Attorney General Charles P. Reyes Jr. argued that the adoption of SUMB credits had not been conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Administrative Procedures Act or APA and requested remand for purposes of adopting regulations in compliance with APA, citing enacted legislation and an agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Court’s findings
The court found that DFW’s site surveys did not comply with its standard operating procedures, compromising the procedural integrity of the survey process.
The court also concluded that the application of the 50-meter buffer zone was unsupported by the factual record and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action.
In addition, the court determined that DFW’s assessment of the mitigation fee was procedurally and substantively deficient, lacking a transparent and consistent methodology.
The court rejected DFW’s argument that Endangered Species Act compliance justified the indefinite suspension of the permit process, finding no statutory or regulatory provision prohibiting the agency from proceeding with Steeley’s permit based on its existing methodology.
Judge Naraja ordered DFW to issue a final written decision on Steeley’s permit application within 20 days of the issuance of his order.
“That decision shall be based solely on the existing administrative record and previously applied SUMB calculation methodology and shall not incorporate new requirements or criteria not disclosed during the original permit process. Should the Agency deny the application, it must provide a written explanation supported by the record and grounded in specific legal authority,” Judge Naraja said.
“If the Agency fails to comply within the twenty-day period, Steeley may move for further relief, whereupon the court will consider appropriate remedies, including deemed approval, contempt proceedings, or other equitable relief necessary to ensure compliance with this order and applicable law,” the judge added.
