Little Traverse Lake Property Owners Ass'n v. National Park Service
223 F. Supp. 3d 691
W.D. Mich.2016Background
- Plaintiffs own property along Traverse Lake Road and challenge Segment 9 of the Leelanau Scenic Heritage Route Trailway Plan, a non-motorized trail on Park Service property and public rights-of-way.
- The Park Service published an October 2008 EA analyzing Alternatives A (M-22/M-109 route), B (deviations including Traverse Lake Road), and a no-action alternative, and received public comments including objections to Segment 9.
- In March 2009 the Park Service revised Segment 9 to separate the path from Traverse Lake Road, issued a revised EA with another 30-day comment period, received no comments from Plaintiffs, and issued a FONSI in August 2009 selecting Alternative B.
- Plaintiffs sued under NEPA alleging: (1) inadequate disclosure/analysis, (2) failure to prepare an EIS, (3) inadequate range of alternatives (including failure to consider County Road 669/Bohemian Road), and (4) reliance on incomplete/misleading data.
- The Park Service moved for summary judgment arguing Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies (did not comment on the 2009 EA) and that the EA/FONSI complied with NEPA.
- The court held Plaintiffs waived most challenges for failure to comment on the revised EA, and rejected the remaining alternatives claim on the merits; judgment for the Park Service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver / Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Comments on 2008 EA preserved objections to the project and EA defects despite silence on 2009 EA | Plaintiffs failed to comment on the revised 2009 EA and thus forfeited objections; agency lacked notice to reconsider | Plaintiffs waived objections that were not raised in response to the 2009 EA; summary judgment for NPS on waiver grounds |
| Adequacy of disclosure/analysis in EA | EA failed to disclose impacts to woods, wetlands, dunes, and wildlife for Segment 9 | EA and revisions addressed concerns; no specific comments challenged sufficiency of analysis | Court found Plaintiff waived this claim by not commenting on the 2009 EA and no obvious-error exception applied |
| Failure to prepare an EIS | Plaintiffs argue impacts warranted an EIS | No commenter on 2008 EA requested an EIS; Park Service concluded impacts were not significant | Waived for failure to raise in 2009 comment period; no separate finding that an EIS was required |
| Range of alternatives (County Road 669) | Park Service should have considered routing Segment 9 north on County Road 669 (Bohemian Road) | That alternative would conflict with the stated project objective of ending at County Road 651; agency reasonably excluded it | Court held the purpose statement was not unreasonably narrow and excluding CR 669 was reasonable; claim addressed on merits and denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (administrative commenters must alert agency to objections; obvious errors may excuse exhaustion)
- Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (commenting requirement to allow agency meaningful consideration)
- Karst Envtl. Educ. & Prot., Inc. v. Fed. Highway Admin., [citation="559 F. App'x 421"] (6th Cir. 2014) (objections must be detailed enough to allow agency to rectify violations)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains v. Kempthorne, 453 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2006) (range of alternatives is largely agency discretion; must consider objectives and environmental consequences)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency purpose statements are unreasonable if they compel a particular alternative)