One of Lunny's chief allies, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, lobbied for an extension of the lease and in 2009 managed to win approval of legislation authorizing the secretary of the Interior to grant a 10-year extension to the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. After a long review process marked by charges that the National Park Service had manipulated data to show the oyster farm was harmful to the environment, Salazar declined to extend the lease.

Among other reasons, Salazar cited the government's original agreement to purchase the oyster farm's property, Park Service policy limiting commercial operations in national parks and wilderness areas, and the requirements of the 1976 Point Reyes law. He also acknowledged the scientific uncertainty over the oyster operation's environmental and recreational impacts, but said in his view that studies backed the view that letting the lease expire "would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the estero’s natural environment."

Salazar's decision required Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to vacate its premises within 120 days, a departure delayed when Lunny filed suit in December 2012 to block the Interior secretary's action. The lawsuit alleged that Salazar had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an assessment of agency impacts on the human environment, and the federal Administrative Policy Act, which guides government decision-making policies. Ultimately, a federal judge in San Francisco rejected Lunny's request for a preliminary injunction to halt the Department of Interior's action, leading to the 9th Circuit appeal and today's decision denying a rehearing.

The case has caused a split between environmental groups that support wilderness restoration at Point Reyes and leaders of the sustainable food movement, who praise Drakes Bay as a model operation. Both sides submitted "friend of the court" briefs during the Drakes Bay appeal. A group of local restaurateurs were among those who filed a brief arguing that closing the operation "would have a broad, negative and immediate impact, on the local economy and the sustainable agriculture and food industry in the San Francisco Bay Area, on the school children of the workers who live in the housing units onsite, and, in the longer term, on food security and the U.S. balance of trade."

Today's decision to deny the en banc review, in which a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges would have considered Lunny's request, leaves just one option for a further appeal: The U.S. Supreme Court.

Peter Prows, one of several lawyers who has represented Lunny in fighting the Interior Department's decision, said in December that he was prepared to take the case to the nation's highest court if the en banc hearing was denied. "I don't see any reason why we wouldn't take it to the Supreme Court," he told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. "It's a bigger issue than just the oyster farm."

The San Francisco Chronicle reports the company is considering further legal action:

Spokeswoman Tina Walker said the company is "strongly considering" a Supreme Court appeal, and disagrees with the Ninth Circuit's decision to "eject our historic, family-owned oyster farm."

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. has been allowed to continue operating while its case has been litigated. It would need to seek another court order to remain open while appealing to the Supreme Court.

Here's the ruling released today by the 9th Circuit:

Lunny v. SalazarLunny v. Salazar

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. Owner Says He'll Take Case to High Court