Little Traverse Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Nat'l Park Serv.
883 F.3d 644
6th Cir.2018Background
- The National Park Service proposed a 27-mile non-motorized Sleeping Bear Heritage Trail; Segment 9 would reach the northeastern Lakeshore and traverse Traverse Lake Road near Little Traverse Lake.
- The Park Service published a 2008 Trail Plan (EA) with Alternative B routing much of Segment 9 onto Traverse Lake Road; residents submitted substantive comments objecting to impacts to safety, trees, dunes, wetlands, and residential driveways.
- In March 2009 the Park Service issued a revised EA (2009 Trail Plan) that materially changed Segment 9: added boardwalks across wetlands, a separate 10' off-road asphalt path north of Traverse Lake Road (or on Lakeshore property), and routing on an old two-track to avoid sensitive areas; the 2009 comment period produced no objections from Traverse Lake Road residents.
- In August 2009 the Park Service issued a FONSI selecting Alternative B. Nearly six years later plaintiffs sued under NEPA challenging the EA/FONSI, alleging inadequate analysis, failure to prepare an EIS, failure to consider their proposed alternative (terminate at Bohemian Road), and reliance on inaccurate data.
- The district court largely dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as forfeited for failing to raise objections to the 2009 Plan, preserved only the alternatives claim, rejected that claim on the merits (plaintiffs’ alternative did not meet purpose and need), and denied supplementation of the administrative record for lack of exceptional circumstances.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: plaintiffs forfeited most claims by not renewing objections after substantive changes in the 2009 EA; the proposed truncated-route alternative was unreasonable because it did not meet the Plan’s purpose and need; and supplementation was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation (forfeiture) of NEPA challenges | Plaintiffs argue earlier 2008 comments preserved all later NEPA claims | Park Service argues plaintiffs had to renew objections to the materially revised 2009 EA to preserve claims | Court: Claims forfeited — must alert agency to objections to the final/revised proposal (Pub. Citizen) |
| Failure to consider a proposed alternative (terminate at Bohemian Rd.) | Plaintiffs argue Park Service ignored their 2008 proposal and must analyze it as a reasonable alternative | Park Service argues the proposed alternative fails the EA’s purpose and need and is therefore unreasonable | Court: Held Park Service not required to study the proposed truncated route because it would not achieve the Trail’s stated purpose and need |
| Adequacy of EA / need for EIS (inaccurate data, unresolved impacts) | Plaintiffs contend EA/FONSI understated environmental impacts and omitted required analyses | Park Service contends EA analyzed impacts and adopted mitigation; plaintiffs forfeited most challenges by not commenting on 2009 EA | Court: Most adequacy/EIS claims forfeited for failure to timely raise them; on preserved issues, EA/FONSI adequate as to record presented |
| Supplementation of the administrative record | Plaintiffs seek to add photographs, maps, lay testimony as ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ | Park Service says record is complete and additional materials are cumulative and were not presented to agency | Court: Denial of supplementation affirmed—no deliberate exclusion, no bad faith, and no exceptional circumstances; record sufficient for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (to preserve judicial review parties must timely raise concerns so agency can give them meaningful consideration)
- Citizens Against Pellissippi Pkwy. Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2004) (NEPA procedural framework; EA/EIS distinction)
- Friends of Fiery Gizzard v. Farmers Home Admin., 61 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 1995) (EA as screening device)
- Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2012) (only alternatives that meet purpose and need are reasonable)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (review of purpose-and-need breadth and when it is unreasonably narrow)
- Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 1997) (administrative-record review and supplementation standard)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (reviewing court’s role is to apply APA standards to the administrative record)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) (review limited to the administrative record)
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA requires process, not particular substantive results)
- Latin Americans for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Adm’r, Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2014) (supplementation appropriate only in limited circumstances)