2011 WL 1356758
E.D.N.Y.2011Background
- LWCF grant 36-01225 (Empire Fulton Ferry State Park) was awarded to NY OPRHP in 2001 for park improvements including Empire Stores and Tobacco Warehouse.
- OPRHP created a §6(f)(3) boundary map enclosing the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores within the LWCF-protected boundary.
- OPRHP submitted the 6(f)(3) boundary consistent with LWCF procedures; NPS approved and later closed the grant in 2003.
- In 2008, NPS and OPRHP revised the boundary to exclude Tobacco Warehouse/Empire Stores, asserting a “correctable mistake,” triggering debate over the conversion process.
- In 2011, NPS again revised/considered the boundary changes; plaintiffs seek to enjoin drilling/alterations pending litigation.
- Court grants preliminary injunction enjoining drilling and restoration of the original 6(f)(3) boundary pending resolution of the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NPS violated §6(f)(3) by revising boundary without conversion. | OPRHP/NPS included structures in 6(f)(3) boundary; removal without conversion breached statute. | Boundary revision was a proper correction of a mistake not requiring full conversion. | Yes; boundary revision without conversion violates §6(f)(3) and related regulations. |
| Whether NPS’s 2008 and 2011 actions were arbitrary or capricious under the APA. | Decisions relied on incomplete record, ignored statutory requirements, and contravened regulations. | Decisions were permissible interpretations under statutory framework. | No; actions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA. |
| Whether NPS had inherent authority to reconsider final agency actions at all. | No contrary legislative intent; cannot rely on residual authority post-grant. | Agency may reconsider within limits. | No; no lawful inherent authority here; reconsideration untimely and improper. |
| Whether irreparable harm justifies a preliminary injunction. | Irreparable harm to historic structures and public recreation; monetary damages inadequate. | Injunctive relief would hinder redevelopment. | Yes; irreparable harm shown; public interest favors preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2007) (APA/arb. cap. factor; requires rational agency explanation)
- Friends of the Shawangunks, Inc. v. Clark, 754 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1985) (broadly defines 6(f)(3) ‘public outdoor recreation uses’)
- Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Found. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 946 F.2d 189 (2d Cir. 1991) (inherent authority limits; reconsideration timing)
- Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc., 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002) (limits on agency rehearings; Chevron context)
- Forest Watch v. U.S. Forest Service, 410 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005) (confines review to administrative record; substantial record scrutiny)