Scarborough Citizens Protecting Resources v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
674 F.3d 97
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Eastern Trail segment in Scarborough, Maine runs on a 32-acre state-owned tract funded with Wildlife Restoration Act money for waterfowl habitat, management, and access.
- From 1962 to 2005, Maine and IFW conveyed easements on the Trail to Scarborough and private parties, creating a town road in parts and restricting most access to pedestrian/non-motorized use.
- In 2005, an IFW easement and a DEP permit allowed a paved road over 766 feet of Trail to enable a new subdivision; in 2008 USFWS learned the land was likely funded by Wildlife Restoration Act funds.
- Scarborough Citizens filed suit in 2010 alleging violations of the Wildlife Restoration Act, NEPA, and state law; district court dismissed federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Regulations at 50 C.F.R. § 80.14 require funds be applied to approved purposes and real property to continue serving those purposes; 80.14(b) governs management, misuse, and disposal of property.
- On appeal, the First Circuit held there is no mandatory USFWS duty under the Act or regulations to take specific enforcement actions; NEPA claims failed as no major federal action existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Wildlife Restoration Act impose a discrete duty on USFWS to enforce? | Scarborough asserts mandatory duties exist under 16 U.S.C. § 669e and § 80.14. | USFWS discretion bars mandatory action; actions are non-reviewable enforcement choices. | No discrete mandatory duty; claims are not reviewable under the APA. |
| Do 80.14(b) provisions create enforceable federal duties on USFWS? | Regulations impose non-discretionary duties to remedy misuse, notify, and bar funds. | Regulations do not mandate specific USFWS actions; enforcement decisions remain discretionary. | Regulations do not create mandatory duties enforceable by APA review. |
| Can NEPA claim succeed where federal action is not taken or approved? | Federal inaction or partnership with state amounts to major federal action requiring NEPA review. | No major federal action; NEPA requires actual federal action or approval. | No major federal action; NEPA claims fail. |
| Should district court have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims? | State-law grievances should be resolved in federal court with supplemental jurisdiction. | Federal court properly dismissed federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction. | No abuse of discretion; district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2004) (limits review of non-discretionary agency action; discrete actions required)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (agency discretion in enforcement reviews; non-reviewability of unfettered discretion)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus, 627 F.2d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (NEPA obligations and agency actions; environmental considerations)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (an agency has broad discretion in resource allocation and action)
- Sportsmen's Wildlife Def. Fund v. Romer, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Colo. 1998) (APA review of agency action and Wildlife Restoration Act context)
- Mayaguezanos por la Salud y el Ambiente v. United States, 198 F.3d 297 (1st Cir. 1999) (NEPA and environmental review standards in First Circuit)
- State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection & Energy v. Long Island Power Authority, 30 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 1994) (NEPA review limitations and enforcement actions)
- Ramirez-Echevarría v. Pichis, Inc., 659 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2011) (dismissal of supplemental jurisdiction considerations)