For many, home ownership involves life-time memories and joys accumulated over many years. When faced with the loss of one's home by the threat of government action, citizens have a right to expect the government to follow the law. And following the law ---- specifically the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ---- is what several cabin owners in Washington State are now asking the Government to do in the face of the Government's plan to take their cabin homes away.

 

"The National Park Service's proposed course of action carries dire consequences for these cabin owners, some of whom have lived at Lake Roosevelt for over 30 years," said Nancie G. Marzulla, counsel for the Cabin Owners Association. "An EIS will provide the Park Service with the opportunity to evaluate the ramifications of its plan on these homeowners."

 
Background

 

In February 2011, the National Parks Service ("NPS") released an Environmental Assessment for the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington State, which evaluated the possible environmental impacts associated with issuing five-year term special use permits on cabin owners, as well as the impact of imposing harsh terms and restrictions. The proposed course of action preferred by the NPS Assessment would result in the eventual removal of the cabins, even though some of the cabin owners have lived at Lake Roosevelt for over 30 years.

 

At issue is the fact that the Assessment failed to take the necessary "hard look" required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"). As such, Marzulla Law, in accordance with NEPA procedural rules and on behalf of the Lake Roosevelt Cabin Owners Association, submitted comments to NPS urging the drafting of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") which would assess the potential environmental consequences, human and otherwise, of the proposed restrictions on cabin ownership and the ultimate removal of the cabins.

 

Their Cabins, Their Lives: Lake Roosevelt Cabin Owners

 

The Lake Roosevelt Cabin Owners Association represents the owners of all 25 privately owned cabins at Sherman Creek and Rickey Point in the Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. Members of the association have a special and unique interest at stake in the proposed decision-making by NPS because it will dramatically and directly affect their ability to continue owning their cabins. For the last 60 years, cabin owners have invested great time and great treasure in building and maintaining their cabins and the area surrounding their cabins. As a result, the cabin areas are free of fire hazards such as underbrush and trash. The shoreline has not eroded, the beaches are clean, and they have developed friendly relationships with the many annual (and often repeat) visitors to Lake Roosevelt. Through their efforts over many years, they have created a culture of respect for the land and have enhanced the quality of the natural and social experience to those who live and visit there.

 

Two of the courses of action proposed by the NPS assessment would result not only in the loss of the cabins and thus adversely impact the cabin owners, but would also impact the balanced environment that the cabin owners have created and successfully maintained for decades. The proposed action called "Alternative B" would introduce new and costly terms and conditions that will drastically restrict the cabin owners' use of their cabins and would not allow for the rebuilding of any cabin. Instead, the cabin sites would revert to NPS and ultimately NPS will remove all cabins from Lake Roosevelt. The proposed action called "Alternative C" (the "environmentally preferred alternative") would call for the immediate elimination of the private cabins.

 

Only "Alternative A" in the assessment calls for taking no action at all and maintaining the status quo.

 

Taking A "Hard Look": National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

 

In Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council (1989), the Supreme Court explained that Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act to "ensure[] that [federal] agenc[ies], in reaching [their] decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts" and to "guarantee[] that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision making process and the implementation of that decision." Congress intended that "by focusing the agency's attention on the environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA ensures that important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast."

 

When Congress enacted NEPA, it did so with the intention that government agencies take a "hard look" at environmental impacts when deciding to pursue a particular federal action. Congress did not intend for the government to conduct assessments as an abstract exercise. As such, NEPA requires that federal agencies produce an EIS for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." In taking a "hard look," one of the several factors an EIS must evaluate is the relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.

 

In evaluating whether a proposed action affects the human environment, the state of the current, existing environment is highly relevant.

 

NPS Should Conduct an Environmental Impact Statement

 

According to regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"), "NEPA procedures must [e]nsure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, NEP documents must concentrate on the issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless detail."

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed courses of action in the NPS Environmental Assessment are both arbitrarily arrived at and woefully inadequate. NPS fails to even consider that the proposed courses of action will result in the severe restriction and ultimate elimination of the positive contributions of the cabin owners to Lake Roosevelt. The Environmental Assessment also contains numerous inaccuracies and misstatements that significantly affect NPS's conclusions and raises substantial questions concerning whether NPS has taken the necessary "hard look" at the impacts from the proposed action. NPS also does not fully consider the cumulative and indirect impacts from the proposed alternative or explain why it has arbitrarily dismissed reasonable alternatives from consideration. Evaluation of all these issues demonstrates that NPS should develop an Environmental Impact Statement.