## Facts

- The National Park Service (NPS) managed Gettysburg National Military Park and a 1962 modernist visitor facility, the Gettysburg Cyclorama Center, designed by architect Richard Neutra.
- The cyclorama painting previously housed in the building was relocated, and the structure no longer served as the primary visitor facility.
- In 1999, NPS issued a Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) selecting an alternative that contemplated removal of the Cyclorama Center as part of restoring the battlefield setting to reflect 1863 conditions.
- The Cyclorama Center was found eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Preservation advocates and related plaintiffs sued in 2006 under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging NPS violated NEPA and NHPA by moving toward demolition without adequate, project-level analysis, notice, and consideration of preservation alternatives.
- The case came before the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion to augment the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA required NPS to prepare an implementation-level, site-specific environmental review addressing the demolition’s impacts and reasonable alternatives, rather than relying on a programmatic GMP/EIS and ROD.
2. Whether the NEPA claims were time-barred because the relevant “final agency action” occurred in 1999, or whether limitations did not run absent a later site-specific implementation decision and adequate public notice.
3. Whether NPS violated NHPA in connection with demolition planning, and whether NHPA claims were barred by limitations or otherwise failed on the record.
4. Whether the court should augment the administrative record with additional materials offered by plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment in part to plaintiffs on the NEPA claims, holding the existing documentation did not supply an adequate site-specific analysis for the demolition decision.
- The court ordered NPS to complete a full implementation-level, site-specific NEPA review (an EIS or an EA resulting in a FONSI) before taking implementing action toward demolition.
- The court rejected the argument that the NEPA claims were untimely based solely on the 1999 GMP/EIS and ROD, reasoning that a demolition-specific, site-level final action had not been sufficiently completed and noticed to start the limitations period for the challenged project action.
- The court entered summary judgment for defendants on the NHPA claims, concluding they were time-barred or otherwise unsupported.
- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to augment the administrative record.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires agencies to take a “hard look” at environmental effects before committing to major federal actions; where an agency proceeds from a programmatic plan to a concrete project, NEPA generally requires an implementation-level, site-specific analysis for the project.
- A programmatic EIS and ROD may guide later actions but do not necessarily satisfy NEPA for a specific demolition project without a meaningful project-level assessment and consideration of reasonable alternatives.
- NEPA’s alternatives analysis must address reasonable options, including preservation-oriented alternatives when demolition of a historically significant or eligible resource is proposed.
- For limitations and finality under APA/NEPA challenges, accrual may depend on whether the agency has taken (and adequately noticed) a final, site-specific implementation decision for the project action being challenged.
- APA review is ordinarily confined to the administrative record; record supplementation requires a showing meeting limited exceptions and is not granted merely because additional materials may be informative.
- NHPA claims may be barred by statutes of limitation, and plaintiffs must show a legally actionable deficiency in the agency’s consultation/compliance process as applied to the challenged undertaking.

## Conclusion

The court required NPS to complete a project-level, site-specific NEPA review before implementing demolition of the Cyclorama Center because the earlier park-wide planning documents did not provide adequate demolition-specific analysis or alternatives review, while plaintiffs’ NHPA claims failed due to timing and evidentiary deficiencies and the administrative record was not expanded.


Recent Past Preservation Network v. Latschar, 701 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2010)