Boston Redevelopment Authority v. National Park Service
838 F.3d 42
1st Cir.2016Background
- The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) received nearly $800,000 in LWCF grants (1981–1986) to rehabilitate Long Wharf, including a northern pavilion area; LWCF grants create Section 6(f) restrictions that prevent conversion of funded land to non-public outdoor recreation uses without NPS approval.
- The BRA later proposed converting the pavilion to a commercial restaurant/bar; in 2009 the Commonwealth (state intermediary) relied on a 1983 map and thought the pavilion lay outside the Section 6(f) area, allowing preliminary work to proceed.
- In 2012 NPS discovered a 1980 map in its file labeled as the project boundary map, which depicted the pavilion inside the Section 6(f) area; NPS concluded the 1980 map was the map of record and advised the Commonwealth/BRA that conversion required NPS approval.
- After meetings and an April 2014 site visit where BRA presented evidence supporting the 1983 map, NPS issued a final decision confirming the 1980 map as the controlling Section 6(f) boundary.
- BRA sued under the APA, the LWCF Act, and for declaratory relief; the district court granted summary judgment to NPS (finding the agency decision not arbitrary or capricious), and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate standard of review | BRA argued for de novo review or that NPS acted ultra vires so APA review inapplicable | NPS and district court treated the act as informal agency action subject to APA arbitrary-and-capricious review | Court found BRA waived de novo/ultra vires challenge by litigating under APA below; APA review applies |
| Which map is the map of record (1980 vs 1983) | BRA: 1983 map governs; 1980 map was a concept sketch, not the official project boundary | NPS: 1980 map was the project boundary map in the file and consistent with application, metes-and-bounds, and subsequent interactions | Court held NPS reasonably found the 1980 map was the map of record; decision not arbitrary or capricious |
| Scope of Section 6(f) protections (planning vs development) | BRA: LWCF used only for planning, so Section 6(f) should not attach to pavilion | NPS: Section 6(f) covers property acquired/developed and planning cannot be used to evade protections; agency interpretation reasonable | Court rejected BRA's novel statutory argument as waived and, in any event, deferred to NPS under Chevron; planning-only loophole disallowed |
| Procedural and substantive due process / taking claim | BRA: NPS denied adequate process and effected an uncompensated taking by restricting pavilion | NPS: Provided notice and opportunity to be heard; restrictions were part of grant conditions, not a taking | Court held BRA waived these claims on appeal; on merits found procedural process sufficient and no unconstitutional taking because restrictions were bargained conditions of the grant |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Fisheries of Me., Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997) (describes arbitrary-and-capricious standard in APA review)
- Mass. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Sec'y of Agric., 984 F.2d 514 (1st Cir. 1993) (explains summary-judgment vehicle for APA review)
- Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598 (1st Cir. 2016) (cites APA standard and 5 U.S.C. § 706)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1973) (administrative record is focal point for judicial review)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (agency action reviewability under APA)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (test for adequacy of procedural due process)
- Kuperman v. Wrenn, 645 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding conditions on federal grants and limits on takings challenges)