CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LITTLE TRAVERSE LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION; DOUGLAS JONES; L. GENE MORSE; LINDA MORSE; MARY ANN SHUTZ; MARCIA SKJAERLUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-1064
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:15-cv-00789—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Argued: October 13, 2017
Decided and Filed: February 23, 2018
Before: KEITH, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case presents the question of what citizens must do during the administrative planning stage of a federal agency action in order to preserve a later challenge to the agency’s final decision under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In 2008, the National Park Service proposed a plan to build a scenic trailway through the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Leelanau County, Michigan. One of the alternative routes for the trailway ran along Traverse Lake Road, but residents along that road opposed sending Lakeshore visitors down their residential street, so they submitted objections to the proposed plan during the public comment period. The Park Service attempted to address the objections to the 2008 proposal, and in 2009, the Park Service issued a revised proposal that made significant changes to the portion of the trail along Traverse Lake Road. No one submitted objections to the revised plan, and the Park Service approved the route along Traverse Lake Road after it made a finding of no significant impact.

Almost six years later, the Little Traverse Lake Property Owners Association, along with individual residents on Traverse Lake Road (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the current action, contending that the 2009 plan violates NEPA and its implementing regulations. In support of their claims, Plaintiffs sought to supplement the administrative record with additional pictures, maps, and other documents. However, the district court correctly dismissed most of Plaintiffs’ claims as forfeited because Plaintiffs failed to participate in the Park Service’s planning process in a manner that would alert the Park Service to their objections to the 2009 plan, and therefore, Plaintiffs did not allow the Park Service the opportunity to give the issues meaningful consideration before issuing its final decision. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764–65 (2004). The district court also correctly held that Plaintiffs’ lone preserved claim is without merit, and that Plaintiffs have failed to show that there are exceptional circumstances requiring supplementation of the administrative record.