Case Law Details
Recent Past Preservation Network v. Latschar
Project Description:
This project involved a proposal by the National Park Service to demolish the Gettysburg Cyclorama Center, a building at Gettysburg National Park. The Cycolorama was built in 1962 to function as a visitor center and to display a 356-foot long cylindrical painting by Paul Philippoteaux depicting “Pickett’s Charge,” a pivotal attack during the Battle of Gettysburg. Eventually, the painting was moved to another building, and the Cyclorama ceased serving as a visitor’s center. In 1998, the Cyclorama was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In June 1999, the NPS published an EIS for a park-wide general management plan, which recommended (among other things) demolishing the Cyclorama as part of an effort to rehabilitate the battlefield to better reflect conditions in 1863. On November 23, 1999, the Park Service issued a ROD announcing its decision to implement an alternative that included demolishing the Cyclorama.
2010 WL 1244375
2010 WL 1244375
U.S. District Court – Washington DC
03/31/2010
Gettysburg Cyclorama Center
Other
Case Summary
In December 2006, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging NPS’s decision to remove the Cyclorama. They alleged violations of NEPA and Section 106. The Court found that NPS had complied with Section 106, but had not complied with NEPA. The court entered an injunction prohibiting NPS from moving forward with the demolition of the Cyclorama.
Key Holdings
NEPA
Site-Specific NEPA Review. The plaintiffs claimed that NPS should have prepared NEPA document specifically regarding the demolition of the Cyclorama Center, rather than relying on the 1999 EIS for the park’s general management plan, which recommended demolition of the Center. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the 1999 EIS “provides a park-wide overview, but does not provide the reader with an analysis of the Center’s demolition and removal, either by way of discussion or adequate reference to another source.”
Type of NEPA Document. The court held that NPS had discretion to determine the type of NEPA document (EIS or EA or CE) for the proposed demolition: “The upshot is that the Park Service must determine whether the proposed demolition and restoration constitutes a significant impact for purposes of [NEPA] and proceed accordingly. Whether that means a categorical determination or an environmental assessment followed by a FONSI or an EIS (or Supplemental EIS) is for the Park Service to determine.”
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 110 of NHPA. The plaintiffs argued that NPS had not prepared an adequate preservation program as required by Section 110(a) of the NHPA. The court held that NPS had complied with Section 110 because it maintained an agency-wide preservation program.
Administrative Procedure Act
Supplementing the Administrative Record. The plaintiffs filed several affidavits (statements from various individuals), and asked the court to consider these materials even though they were outside the NPS’s administrative record. The court declined to consider these materials, because “Plaintiffs’ motion does not reveal inadequacies in the Park Service’s record or otherwise explain how the documents would aid judicial review. Indeed, the motion is unsupported by even a single citation to the administrative record.”
File Attachment
Download the decision