Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05037/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05037-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 9, 1999 Decided February 22, 2000

No. 99-5037

Paul Davis III, et al.,

Appellants

v.

John Latschar, Superintendent, Gettysburg National

Military Park, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 97cv00232)

Katherine A. Meyer, with whom Howard M. Crystal was

on the briefs, argued the cause for appellants.

Evelyn S. Ying, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, with

whom Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert L. Klarquist, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, were

on the brief, argued the cause for appellees.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 1 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before Ginsburg and Garland, Circuit Judges, and

Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Judge Buckley.

Buckley, Senior Judge: In 1995, John Latschar, the Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park ("Gettysburg"), instituted a program to curtail the over-browsing of

wooded and crop areas by white-tailed deer in Gettysburg

and the neighboring Eisenhower National Historic Site. The

program provides for the annual killing of deer by parkemployed marksmen after dark from October through March

until a desired density of deer per wooded square mile is

achieved. Paul Davis III, five other residents of Gettysburg,

Pennsylvania, and three animal rights organizations (collectively, "Davis") seek an order enjoining the program on the

basis that, in approving it, the National Park Service had

failed to comply with its own enabling statute and policies

implementing that statute, the National Environmental Policy

Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

On December 31, 1998, the district court issued an opinion

in which it granted summary judgment in favor of the Superintendent, the Director of the National Park Service, and the

Secretary of the Interior, all of whom were joined as parties

defendant (collectively, "Superintendent"). See Davis v.

Latschar, __ F. Supp.2d ___ (D.D.C. 2000), No. 97-232, 1998

WL 968474, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 1998) ("1998 opinion").

Davis thereupon filed a motion requesting the court to amend

the opinion "to correct ... the Court's characterization of

the record in the case." Motion to Amend and Reconsider

the Court's Ruling ("motion to amend"), reprinted in Joint

Appendix ("J.A.") at 920. In a memorandum opinion and

order issued on January 26, 1999, the court denied the

motion, again entered judgment for the defendants, and lifted

the stay that had caused the Park Service to suspend its

implementation of the deer management program. See Davis

v. Latschar, __ F. Supp.2d ___, ___ (D.D.C. 2000), No. 97-232,

1998 WL 968474, at *10 (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 1999) ("mem. op.").

We affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor

of the Superintendent for the reasons stated in the 1998

opinion, which we adopt as our own and reprint as an

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 2 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

appendix hereto. To District Judge Paul L. Friedman's

thorough and well-reasoned analysis, we would add only the

following comments concerning two issues raised by Davis in

his motion to amend and before this court in which he claims

that the 1998 opinion mischaracterizes the record. The first

of these relates to Davis's argument that the Park Service

was required by the National Environmental Policy Act to

prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement

("SEIS") for the deer management program to take into

account changes in park management recommended in a

newly proposed "General Management Plan" ("GMP") that

has since been adopted by the Park Service. These called for

significant reductions in wooded acreage and for changes in

agricultural patterns at Gettysburg that the Park Service

acknowledged would result in a reduction in the park's deer

population. The second relates to Davis's argument that the

Park Service failed to address the impact of the deer management program on the contemplative atmosphere of Gettysburg as he alleges it was required to do under the National

Historic Preservation Act.

A. National Environmental Policy Act

In the memorandum Davis submitted in support of the

motion to amend ("Davis memorandum"), reprinted in J.A. at

922-30, he complained that the 1998 opinion's discussion of

the SEIS issue contained a misleading footnote and improperly relied on an argument the Park Service's counsel made for

the first time before the district court. See, e.g., SEC v.

Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947) ("[A] reviewing court,

in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the

propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the

agency."). The footnote complained of states that "[it] appears from the record ... that ... plaintiffs never requested a supplemental EIS or argued that one was required until

they raised the issue in this Court." Davis, ___ F. Supp.2d at

___ n.7, 1998 WL 968474, at *8 n.7; Appendix at 15-16 n.7.

In support of his motion to amend, Davis submitted, as new

evidence suggesting that he had, in fact, raised the issue

before the Park Service, a copy of a letter proposing a

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 3 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

settlement of the case in which he urged the Service to

initiate an SEIS. If the court's failure to take cognizance of

facts not presented to it was indeed error, in this case it was

harmless error. As Judge Friedman correctly noted in dismissing the motion to amend, the footnote "was at most an

alternative ground for the Court's conclusion that a supplemental EIS was not required in this case." Mem. op. at 3.

The Park Service argument to which Davis objected, and

on which the district court relied, is to be found in the last

sentence of the following excerpt from the 1998 opinion:

Plaintiffs argue that [the removal of several hundred

acres of non-historic woodlands and changes in agricultural patterns] will lead to a reduction in the deer

population. Once again, plaintiffs have improperly focused the inquiry. The deer management program is

intended to maintain the deer population density, not the

total deer population.

Davis, ___ F. Supp.2d at ___, 1998 WL 968474, at *8 (emphasis in original); Appendix at 14.

Davis describes the distinction between deer population

(i.e., the total number of deer within Gettysburg) and deer

density (which is measured in terms of the number of deer

per wooded square mile within the park) as a post hoc

rationalization. Davis is mistaken. The deer management

program is itself predicated on the need to control density.

See, e.g., Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix E

at 152 ("The National Park Service has decided the initial

April deer density goal will be 25 deer per square mile of

forested study area....").

It is worth noting that because the program is based on

density rather than population, it is remarkably sensitive to

the kinds of changes in the Gettysburg landscape that are

called for in the GMP. The Park Service recognizes that

"[t]he precise density of deer that would result in an acceptable level of browsing that would allow Gettysburg [National

Military Park] and Eisenhower [National Historic Site] to

meet their landscape management objectives is unknown."

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 4 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Id. at 151. Because of uncertainty regarding the optimal

density level, the Park Service erred on the side of preserving

deer by setting an initial goal that is less stringent than the

20 deer per square mile supported by the Park Service's own

research and recommended by the Pennsylvania Game Commission for the county in which the parks are located. The

program calls for ongoing monitoring of the effects of deer

browsing on cropfields and woodlots so that the deer density

goal may be adjusted in light of actual experience in meeting

the parks' landscape objectives. Id. at 152-53.

B. National Historic Preservation Act

Davis maintains that the Park Service violated the National

Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA") because, in assessing the

impact of the nightly killing of deer on the parks, it ignored

what he believed to be its obligation to protect the "contemplative" atmosphere of the Gettysburg battlefield. Davis memorandum at 5-6. The record, however, confirms that the

Park Service gave the substance of his argument full consideration. See, e.g., Section 106 Case Report at 9 (discussing

claim that deer management program would adversely affect

the " 'solemn and contemplative purpose' of the park"); Letter from Superintendent Latschar to Brenda Barnett (Aug.

19, 1997) ("Audible effects are temporary, limited, proportionally decreasing, and minimized by muzzle suppressors.").

Furthermore, the Park Service provided Davis's position and

its own evaluation of it to the Pennsylvania Historical and

Museum Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, with whom it was required to consult. See 36

C.F.R. ss 800.2(b)(2), (c) (1999). Each of these bodies agreed

that the program would have no adverse effect on the qualities that make Gettysburg eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

In light of the foregoing, the district court's order denying

the motion to amend and entering judgment for the Superintendent is

Affirmed.

APPENDIX

Paul DAVIS III, et al., Plaintiffs

v.

John LATSCHAR, et al., Defendants

OPINION

Dec. 31, 1998

FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

The National Park Service (the "Park Service") seeks to

reinitiate its deer management program for Gettysburg National Military Park ("Gettysburg") and Eisenhower National

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 5 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Historic Site ("Eisenhower"). The program, which calls for

park rangers to shoot deer in a controlled harvest to maintain

the population density, was in effect in 1996 and 1997. The

Park Service suspended the program in July of 1997 because

of the pendency of this lawsuit and stipulated that it would

not reinitiate the program without an Order from this Court.

It has now requested such an Order.

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should enjoin the deer

management program because the Park Service has acted

contrary to (1) the National Park Service Organic Act ("Organic Act"), 16 U.S.C. s 1 et seq., (2) its management policies

implementing the Organic Act, (3) the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. s 4321 et seq., and (4) the

National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), 16 U.S.C.

s 470 et seq. Because the Court finds that the Park Service

acted consistently with the Organic Act and its implementing

guidelines and that it has complied with the procedures of

both NEPA and NHPA, the Court grants summary judgment

for the Park Service which therefore is permitted to reinitiate

its deer management program.

I. BACKGROUND

Gettysburg and Eisenhower are contiguous parcels of land

in rural Pennsylvania that are managed by the National Park

Service. Gettysburg was established to "preserve and protect the resources associated with the Battle of Gettysburg

and the Soldiers' National Cemetery, and to provide understanding of the events that occurred [there], within the

context of American history." See Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Gettysburg National Military Park ("Draft GMP"), Plaintiffs' Exh.

E at 7; see also An Act to Establish a National Military Park

at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, s 3, 28 Stat. 651 (1895) (codified

as amended at 16 U.S.C. s 430g) (The Superintendent of the

park shall "ascertain and definitely mark the lines of battle of

all troops engaged in the battle of Gettysburg"). Eisenhower

was established to preserve the cultural and natural resources

of the home of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and to

interpret his life and career. See Final Environmental Impact Statement for the White-Tailed Deer Management Plan

("Final EIS") at 3-5, Administrative Record ("A.R.") at 2200-

02.

By the early 1980's, the Park Service had become concerned about deer overpopulation in the area of Gettysburg

and Eisenhower. In 1985, at the request of the Park Service,

Dr. Gerald Storm of Pennsylvania State University and his

colleagues began a study of the impact of the deer on the

parks "because of concern by the National Park Service

resource managers about the intensive deer browsing of tree

seedlings in historic woodlots, increasing consumption of farm

crops by deer, and high number of deer and automobile

collisions." Gerald L. Storm et al., Executive Summary of

Population Status, Movements, Habitat Use, and Impact of

White-Tailed Deer ("Storm Report") at 1, A.R. at 207. Corroborating the concerns of the resource managers, Dr. Storm

found that the browsing of the deer depleted the oak and

white ash seedlings needed to maintain the woodlots' historic

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 6 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

appearance and that the deer consumed a large percentage of

the corn and wheat crop. Id. at 3-4, A.R. at 209-10. Dr.

Storm recommended that the Park Service reduce the deer

population density to a level "at or below the level recommended for Adams County by the Pennsylvania Game Commission." Id. at 4, A.R. at 210. This level was 20 deer per

forested square mile. Id.

Even before the Storm Report was completed, the Park

Service had begun to evaluate alternatives for controlling

deer population density. In February of 1990, Dr. Gerald

Wright of the University of Idaho sent a 100-page draft

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 7 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

environmental impact statement ("EIS") to the Park Service

that recommended fencing off the protected areas as the

preferred approach. See R. Gerald Wright, Deer Management Alternatives for Gettysburg National Military Park and

Associated Environmental Analysis; A Draft Report (1990),

A.R. at 3944-4054. While Dr. Wright's report received some

initial favorable reviews, it was subsequently rejected as

substantively and procedurally inadequate and therefore was

used only as a research document. See May 7, 1990 Memorandum from Jacob J. Hoogland, Chief, Environmental Quality Division, to Bob Gift, Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic

Region, A.R. at 354 ("The draft environmental analysis that

we have reviewed informally has neither the substance nor

format necessary to suffice as an EIS").

In August of 1992, the Park Service published its Notice of

Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

in the Federal Register; the notice described a range of

alternatives that might be used to control deer population

density. See 57 Fed.Reg. 3806 (1992), A.R. at 984. The Park

Service noticed and held two open meetings to gather information from the public on the desired scope of the EIS. See

Minutes of the January 7 Meeting on White-tailed Deer

Management at Gettysburg National Military Park/Eisenhower National Military Site Held at Penn State, A.R. at

1111-15; Environmental Impact Statement Meeting, February 27th, 1993, A.R. at 1169-75. In both the draft environmental impact statement that it released in 1994 and the final

environmental impact statement it released in 1995, the Park

Service explicitly considered a range of alternatives, including

the fencing alternative proposed by Dr. Wright and endorsed

by plaintiffs in this litigation. See Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for the White-Tailed Deer Management

Plan ("Draft EIS") at 24-42, A.R. at 1888-1906; Final EIS at

24-42, A.R. at 2221-41.1 The Park Service then published its

__________

1. The Park Service created a list of alternatives using suggestions from the public and Park Service personnel and by reviewing

the available literature. See Final EIS at 23, A.R. at 2220. The

Park Service eliminated nine alternatives from detailed study after

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 8 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Record of Decision ("ROD"), choosing to manage the population density through a controlled harvest (i.e., shooting the

deer to reduce their density), and began the hunt in the fall of

1996. Record of Decision ("ROD"), A.R. at 3570-76.

Plaintiffs brought suit in February of 1997 to enjoin the

shooting of the deer. After briefing had begun on plaintiffs'

motion for summary judgment, the Park Service moved to

stay the litigation, arguing that it would eliminate the issues

in the lawsuit by suspending the deer management program

while revisiting its compliance with the applicable laws. See

Defendants' July 25, 1997 Motion for Temporary Stay of

Litigation at 1-2. The Park Service also revealed that soon

after plaintiffs filed their complaint it had initiated procedures

to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. See

Transcript of August 12, 1997 Motions Hearing at 7-8. After

the parties agreed that the deer management program would

not be reinitiated without an Order from this Court and

formulated procedures to ensure plaintiffs' involvement in the

NHPA process, the Court stayed the litigation. See August

15, 1997 Joint Stipulation.

The Park Service now has conducted what it believes to be

a sufficient NHPA process. It has prepared a Section 106

report analyzing the possible "adverse effects" of the deer

management program on Gettysburg and Eisenhower, including its effect upon "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling [and] association," 36 C.F.R. s 800.9(b), and

it has concluded that the program would have no "adverse

effects." See Section 106 Case Report; White-Tailed Deer

__________

initial consideration. These alternatives were: (1) restoration of

predators, (2) deterrents, (3) repellants, (4) poison, (5) public hunting, (6) fencing, (7) conversion of cropfields to pasture or hay and

grasses, (8) deer as a commodity, and (9) landowner privilege. Id.

at 24-30, A.R. at 2221-27. The Park Service then evaluated the

five alternatives it considered most viable in more detail. The

second group of alternatives were: (1) no action, (2A) capture and

transfer, (2B) direct reduction (shooting the deer), (3) reproductive

intervention (contraception), (4) cooperative management with

Pennsylvania authorities, and (5) combined management (a combination of 2B and 4). Id. at 30-42, A .R. at 2227-41.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 9 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Management, A.R. at 6352-62. The Park Service then sought

the concurrence of the State Historic Preservation Officer

("SHPO") and, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation,

allowed the plaintiffs to submit their own materials. See

Letter from Dr. John A. Latschar, Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park to Brenda Barrett, Director,

Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic Preservation, A.R. at 6349-

51; Letter from Katherine Meyer to Dr. Brent D. Glass and

Brenda Barrett, A.R. at 6363-70. The SHPO agreed with the

Park Service that there would be no "adverse effects." See

Letter from Brenda Barrett to Dr. John A. Latschar, Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park, A.R. at 6371.

The same process was used to seek the approval of the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("ACHP"). After

obtaining the views of the Keeper of the National Register on

plaintiffs' arguments, the ACHP also agreed with the finding

of "no adverse effect." See Letter from Don L. Klima,

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to Dr. John A.

Latschar, Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military

Park, A.R. at 6504-06.2

On June 19, 1998, the Park Service declared its intent to

reinitiate the deer management program. In August of 1998,

the Park Service released a new draft General Management

Plan ("draft management plan" or "Draft GMP") for Gettysburg. Based on new research on the Battle of Gettysburg

and its relationship to Gettysburg's terrain, the draft management plan recommended adjusting the landscape to better

reflect its state at the time of the battle. See Draft General

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for

Gettysburg National Military Park ("Draft GMP"), Plaintiffs'

Exh. E at 59-60. In the draft management plan's preferred

alternative, the Park Service proposed cutting 576 acres of

non-historic woodlands, altering 278 acres of non-historic

woodlands to reflect historic woodlots and shifting the agri-

__________

2. The ACHP consulted with the Keeper of the National Register regarding what traits Gettysburg possessed that would qualify it

for the National Register. See Letter from Donald Klima, Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation to Carol Shull, Keeper of the

National Register of Historic Places, A.R. at 6464-65.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 10 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

culture to historical field patterns. See id. at 122-28. All

proposals considered under the draft management plan were

premised on achieving a deer density goal of 25 deer per

forested square mile, as well as the objective of maintaining

the historic woodlots and croplands. See id. at 74-75, 108-64.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The Court may set aside the decision of the Park Service to

reinitiate the deer management program only if that decision

was arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law

or unwarranted by the facts. 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A). For

challenges to an agency's construction of the statutes or

regulations that it administers--such as the Park Service's

reading of its Organic Act and management policies--the

Court's review must be particularly deferential. The Court

must defer to the agency's interpretation of a statute that it

implements "so long as it is reasonable, consistent with the

statutory purpose, and not in conflict with the statute's plain

language." OSG Bulk Ships, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d

808, 814 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Coal Employment Project v.

Dole, 889 F.2d 1127, 1131 (D.C.Cir.1989)); see Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 U.S.

837, 845, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Similarly,

provided it does not violate the Constitution or a federal

statute, an agency's interpretation of its own regulations "will

prevail unless it is 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent' with the

plain terms of the disputed regulations." Everett v. United

States, 158 F.3d 1364, 1367 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Auer v.

Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997));

see Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45, 113 S.Ct. 1913,

123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993); Amerada Hess Pipeline Corp. v.

FERC, 117 F.3d 596, 600 (D.C.Cir.1997).

The standard of review for agency decisions is highly

deferential:

[T]he Court must consider whether the decision was based

on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether

there has been a clear error of judgment. Although this

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 11 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the

ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The Court is

not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the

agency.

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S.

402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); see Motor

Vehicles Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77

L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). The Court's "task is to determine

'whether the agency's decisionmaking was reasoned,' ... i.e.,

whether it considered relevant factors and explained the facts

and policy concerns on which it relied, and whether those

facts have some basis in the record." National Treasury

Employees Union v. Horner, 854 F.2d 490, 498 (D.C.Cir.1988)

(quoting American Horse Protection Ass'n. Inc. v. Lyng, 812

F.2d 1, 5 (D.C.Cir.1987)).

B. The National Park Service Organic Act and Policies

Under the National Park Service Organic Act, the Secretary of the Interior "may ... provide in his discretion for the

destruction of such animals and of such plant life as may be

detrimental to the use of any said parks, monuments, or

reservations." 16 U.S.C. s 3. Because the Organic Act is

silent as to the specifics of park management, the Secretary

has especially broad discretion on how to implement his

statutory mandate. See Daingerfield Island Protective Soc'y

v. Babbitt, 40 F.3d 442, 446 (D.C.Cir.1994); see also Bicycle

Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1454 (9th Cir.1996)

(adopting the district court's opinion); Intertribal Bison

Coop. v. Babbitt, 25 F.Supp.2d 1135 (D.Mont. 1998). Still, a

"finding of detriment" is necessary before the Park Service

may engage in a "controlled harvest" such as the one proposed by the Park Service in its deer management program.

Intertribal Bison Coop. v. Babbitt, at 1138 ("pursuant to s 3

of the Organic Act and Park Service policy a finding of

detriment is necessary to justify a controlled harvest, ... but

an explicit finding of detriment is not otherwise necessary to

justify the destruction of wildlife ...."); see also General

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 12 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Regulations for Areas Administered by National Park Service, 48 Fed.Reg. 30,252, 30,264 (1983) (controlled harvest

"will be utilized only when a finding of 'detriment,' based on

scientific documentation, has been made by the superintendent, and it is determined that removal is an acceptable

method of resource management").

The Park Service claims that it made a sufficient "finding

of detriment" to justify the destruction of the deer under the

Organic Act when it concluded that overbrowsing by deer in

the historic woodlots and cropfields was detrimental to the

purposes of the parks.3 As is reflected at several points in

the record, the Park Service determined that the overbrowsing was preventing it from achieving the parks' objectives of

preserving the historic appearance of the woodlots and cropfields, components of the landscape critical to the understanding and interpretation of the historic events that took place in

each park. See, e.g., ROD at 2, A.R. at 3571 ("Management

objectives for maintaining landscape components, specifically

historic woodlots and cropfields, were developed to enhance

visitor understanding of each park's events"). For example,

in its Record of Decision initiating the deer management

program, the Park Service concluded that

[d]ata from the [Storm Report] showed that the woodlots

and cropfields could not be maintained in a way necessary

to achieve park objectives. The high level of deer browsing

was preventing a sufficient number of tree seedlings from

becoming established, which is needed to perpetuate the

historic woodlots. The agricultural program was unable to

grow historical crops to maturity in Eisenhower NHS and

__________

3. Despite plaintiffs' contentions that the Park Service was

acting in the economic interests of certain tenant farmers in making

this determination, the Court concludes that the record does not

demonstrate that the Park Service had any such ulterior motive. It

was not unreasonable for the Park Service to have kept the farmers

informed about efforts to control the deer and to respond to their

concerns in writing.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 13 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the southern part of Gettysburg NMP due to deer browsing.

Id. at 3, A.R. at 3572. The Court concludes that Park Service

made a sufficient "finding of detriment" on the record to

satisfy the requirements of the Organic Act.

Plaintiffs contend, however, that the "finding of detriment"

made by Park Service is arbitrary and capricious because it is

inconsistent with the alleged admission by the Park Service in

its draft management plan that the cropfields and woodlots do

not need protection because they do not reflect the historic

landscape. Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, the draft management plan contains no such admission. The plan proposes

to eliminate only non-historic woodlands. See Draft GMP at

122. The perpetuation of the historic woodlots and croplands

is still necessary to achieve park objectives under the draft

management plan. Nothing in the record suggests that the

threats to these historic resources from deer overbrowsing--

i.e., the suppression of oak and white ash seedlings and

excessive crop loss--are any less likely to occur in the new

management regime than at the time the Park Service issued

its decision to institute the deer management program. The

"finding of detriment" by the Park Service therefore is not

undermined by the draft management plan and may still

justify the "destruction" of deer under the Organic Act.

If the Organic Act were the only authority limiting the

management discretion of the Park Service, the analysis

would end here. But the Park Service has further bound its

own discretion through the adoption of Management Policies.4

The Management Policies provide that

__________

4. Whether the Park Service is bound by its Management

Policies turns on "the agency's intent to be bound." Vietnam

Veterans of America v. Secretary of the Navy, 843 F.2d 528, 538

(D.C.Cir.1988). Plaintiffs contend that the Park Service demonstrated the requisite intent in the Forward to policies when it stated

that "[a]dherence to policy will be mandatory unless waived or

modified by an appropriate authority." National Park Service

Management Policies, Plaintiffs' Exhibit I at ix. Since defendants'

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 14 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

[u]nnatural concentrations of native species caused by human activities may be controlled if the activities causing the

concentrations cannot be controlled.... Animal populations or individuals will be controlled ... in cultural or

development zones when necessary to protect property or

landscaped areas.

National Park Service Management Policies ("Park Service

Management Policies"), Plaintiffs' Exhibit I at 4:6. Plaintiffs

argue that the Park Service has violated these policies because it has opted to control the deer overpopulation without

first exhausting the available means to regulate the human

activities causing the overpopulation. In particular, plaintiffs

again point to the draft management plan as evidence that

the deer population could be reduced by controlling "human

activities" such as the decisions of the Park Service regarding

the maintenance of Gettysburg's woodlands and cropfields.

The Park Service asserts that the Court does not need to

reach the merits of plaintiffs' argument because plaintiffs

have misread the Management Policies. The Park Service

maintains that the statement that "[a]nimal populations ...

will be controlled in cultural ... zones when necessary to

protect property or landscaped areas" is meant as an exception to the preceding sentence requiring that the Park Service attempt first to control human activities before looking to

control the animal populations. As a result, the Park Service

argues that once it found that Gettysburg and Eisenhower

were "cultural zones" with landscaped areas in need of protection, it was entitled to control the deer population directly

without first seeking to control human activities.5

While the language of the Management Policies could be

interpreted either as plaintiffs read it or as the Park Service

does, the interpretation of the Park Service is plausible; it

__________

did not challenge this assertion, the Court finds that the Park

Service intended to be bound and is bound by the policies.

5. Plaintiffs do not contest the Park Service's position that

Gettysburg and Eisenhower are cultural zones and that their landscaped areas need protection.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 15 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

certainly is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" with the

policies and therefore must prevail over plaintiffs' reading.

See Everett v. United States, 158 F.2d at 1367. The first

excerpted sentence describes two alternatives for addressing

overpopulation of native species--control of the animal population and control of the human activities that caused the

"unnatural concentrations" or overpopulation--and announces

a preference for the latter. The second excerpted sentence

discusses only one of these two alternatives--control of the

animal population--in the context of cultural or development

zones. When these two sentences are juxtaposed, the reading of the second sentence as an exception to the first

sentence's preference for the control of human activities is

not unreasonable. If the Park Service intended to express a

preference for the control of human activities when addressing overpopulation in cultural or development zones, it is

reasonable to expect that it would have explicitly discussed

this alternative technique in the second sentence, as it had in

the first. It did not do so. The interpretation of the Management Policies proffered by the Park Service is not "plainly

erroneous or inconsistent" with the plain terms of the policies

and therefore is entitled to deference.

B. NEPA

Plaintiffs challenge the deer management program under

NEPA on two grounds. First, they argue that the Park

Service did not consider many reasonable alternatives in its

final EIS. Second, they argue that the Park Service must

prepare a supplemental EIS as a result of the changes in

park management that are considered in the draft management plan. Because the Court finds that the Park Service

considered a full range of reasonable alternatives and was

within its discretion by opting not to prepare a supplemental

EIS, the Court concludes that the Park Service fully complied

with NEPA's procedural requirements.

1. Reasonable Alternatives

The regulations implementing NEPA require an agency to

"specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 16 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

is responding" and to "[r]igorously explore and objectively

evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives

which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the

reasons for their having been eliminated." 40 C.F.R.

ss 1502.13, 1502.14. The courts have recognized that these

requirements are interrelated because "the goals of an action

delimit the universe of the action's reasonable alternatives."

City of Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C.Cir.1991).

The setting of the objectives and the range of alternatives to

be considered by an agency are governed by a "rule of

reason." See City of Grapevine v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 17

F.3d 1502, 1506 (D.C.Cir.1994); City of Burlington v. Busey,

938 F.2d at 195. The Court must uphold "an agency's

definition of objectives so long as the objectives that the

agency chooses are reasonable, and ... uphold its discussion

of alternatives so long as the alternatives are reasonable and

the agency discusses them in reasonable detail." City of

Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d at 196.

Plaintiffs assert that the Park Service unfairly narrowed its

objective for the deer management program from the perpetuation of historic resources to the control of deer population

so as to eliminate reasonable alternatives. This argument is

not supported in the record. In an internal memorandum

drafted early in the NEPA process, the Park Service asserted

that the objective of the program was "not to reduce the deer

population but to perpetuate the significant elements of the

cultural landscape." Program Review and Project Data

Sheet for Deer Management at GETT, A.R. at 168. In the

Final EIS, the Park Service stated that "a management

action is needed to control the browsing effects of white-tailed

deer in the parks." Final EIS at 13, A.R. at 2210. In the

context of the Storm Report's conclusion that the overbrowsing of the deer was threatening the historic resources of

Gettysburg, see Storm Report at 4, A.R. at 220, these statements of objective are the same.

Even if the Park Service's alteration of the objective's

wording were suspicious, any suspicions are allayed by its

thorough consideration of all alternatives. In its draft EIS

and its final EIS, the Park Service initially considered and

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 17 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

rejected a wide range of non-lethal alternatives, including

alternatives such as fencing and altering cropfield patterns as

suggested by plaintiffs. See Draft EIS, A.R. at 1892; Final

EIS, A.R. at 2225-26. The Park Service then proceeded to

evaluate in more detail the five alternatives it considered

most viable. See Final EIS at 30-42, A.R. at 2227-41; see

also supra at note 1. It is apparent from a review of both the

draft EIS and the final EIS that the Park Service weighed all

of the reasonable alternatives and came to a fully-informed

decision. This is all that NEPA requires. See Strycker's

Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28,

100 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980) (NEPA is only procedural and does not mandate a substantive result); Environmental Defense Fund v. Massey, 986 F.2d 528, 532 (D.C.Cir.1993)

(NEPA "does not dictate agency policy or determine the fate

of contemplated action").

Plaintiffs raise only one alternative not considered in the

Final EIS--the cutting of the non-historic woodlands pursuant to the draft management plan. This cannot be viewed as

a "reasonable alternative," however, because it would not

further the objective of reducing browsing in historic areas.

As the draft management plan noted, the cutting of the nonhistoric woodlands would not reduce the desired deer population density. See Draft GMP at 255. Since it is deer

population density that needs to be controlled in order to

preserve the parks' historic resources, cutting the nonhistoric woodlands would not further the deer management

program's objective. Furthermore, the record suggests that

cutting non-historic woodlands may even exacerbate the problem by driving the deer into the historic areas. See Storm

Report at 5, A.R. at 211 (deer displaced by fencing "would be

forced into other areas where their impact would be intensified"). Cutting the non-historic woodlands therefore is not an

alternative that the Park Service had to consider.

2. Supplemental EIS

An agency is required to prepare a supplemental EIS if

"[t]here are significant new circumstances or information

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 18 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts." 40 C.F.R. s 1502.09. "[N]ot

every change requires [a supplemental EIS]; only those

changes that cause effects which are significantly different

from those already studied require supplementary consideration." Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 982 F.Supp.

24, 30 (D.D.C.1997). The decision to prepare a supplemental

EIS is again governed by the "rule of reason" and reviewed

by the courts under the "arbitrary or capricious" standard of

the APA. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490

U.S. 360, 373-75, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989)

("[A]n agency need not supplement an EIS every time new

information comes to light after the EIS is finalized. To

require otherwise would render agency decisionmaking intractable"). Because the decision whether to prepare a supplemental EIS involves technical issues within the agency's

area of expertise, courts generally "defer to the 'informed

discretion of the responsible federal agencies.' " Id. at 377

(quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct.

2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976)).

Plaintiffs argue that the draft management plan, issued

after the preparation of the final EIS, contains new proposals

for managing Gettysburg's historic resources that will have a

significant impact on the deer population, thus requiring the

Park Service to prepare a supplemental EIS. Under the

preferred alternative of the draft management plan, nonhistoric woodlands will be cut, other woodlands will be

thinned to take on the appearance of historic woodlots and

new field patterns may reduce the availability of crops to the

deer. See Draft GMP at 122-28. Plaintiffs argue that these

steps will lead to a reduction in the deer population. Once

again, plaintiffs have improperly focused the inquiry. The

deer management program is intended to maintain the deer

population density, not the total deer population. To constitute "significant new circumstances or information" requiring

a supplemental EIS, the draft management plan would have

to have a significant effect on the deer population density

needed to sustain the historic properties of the parks.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 19 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the draft management plan would have any impact on the desired deer population density.6 After years of study, the Park Service has

determined that a deer population density of 25 deer per

forested square mile is the appropriate level necessary to

conserve the historic resources of Gettysburg and Eisenhower. The target density is intended to ensure that there are

adequate seedlings to regenerate the young oak and white

ash trees that make up the historic woodlots and to ensure

adequate crop production to "tell the stories" of the parks.

See, e.g., Final EIS at 9,12, A.R. at 2206, 2209. The proposals

in the draft management plan to cut non-historic woodlands,

convert other woodlands into historic woodlots and change

agricultural field patterns do not "cause effects which are

significantly different from those already studied." Corridor

H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 982 F.Supp. at 30. Specifically,

the Park Service found that the historic resources will not be

changed under the draft management plan in a manner that

alters the need to control overbrowsing through the maintenance of the desired deer population density. Because the

Court has no reason to question the exercise of discretion by

the Park Service in its area of expertise, it concludes that the

decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS was not arbitrary

and capricious.7

__________

6. Plaintiffs also contend that the changes in the draft management plan might eliminate the need for any shooting because the

deer will be driven outside the parks in search of cover and food.

This contention, however, does not undermine the justification for

the deer management program. If the deer migrate out of the

parks as the plaintiffs contend they will, the Park Service will not

shoot the deer, or will shoot fewer deer, because the deer population density will fall to an acceptable level. See also ROD at 5, A.R.

at 3574 ("When the population is reduced to the density goal, fewer

deer will need to be killed annually to maintain the population at

that level").

7. Plaintiffs also argue that the Court should disregard the

arguments the Park Service made for the first time in this Court as

post hoc rationalizations that cannot support its decision. See

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 20 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

C. The National Historic Preservation Act

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act, the Park Service "shall ... take into account" the effects

of any undertaking on a "site ... included in or eligible for

the National Register." 16 U.S.C. s 470f. In assessing the

effects of its undertaking, the Park Service is required to

"afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ... a

reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking." 16 U.S.C. s 470f. If the effects are "adverse,"

the agency is required to consider means for alleviating the

impacts after consulting the State Historic Preservation Officer ("SHPO"), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

("ACHP") and the public. 36 C.F.R. s 800.5. "Adverse

effects" are defined as any "effect on a historic property

[that] may diminish the integrity of the property's location,

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association" and expressly include the "[i]ntroduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with

the property or alter its setting." 36 C.F.R. s 800.9(b). The

requirements of Section 106, however, do not require the

Park Service to engage in any particular preservation activities; rather, Section 106 only requires that the Park Service

consult the SHPO and the ACHP and consider the impacts of

its undertaking. See Nat'l Trust for Historic Preservation v.

Blanck, 938 F.Supp. 908, 918 (D.D.C.1996) ("Section 106 is

universally interpreted as requiring agencies to consult and

consider and not to engage in any particular preservation

activities per se").

__________

Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 50. It appears from the record, however, that

the Park Service never made the arguments before because plaintiffs never requested a supplemental EIS or argued that one was

required until they raised the issue in this Court. Because the

decision whether a supplemental EIS is required should be made

initially by the agency, not by a reviewing court, plaintiffs should

have made a request to the Park Service and allowed it to make a

decision. Friends of the River v. FERC, 720 F.2d 93, 109 (D.C.Cir.

1983). Nevertheless, the Court need not consider the effect of

plaintiffs' failure to raise the issue earlier because it rejects the

request on its merits. Id.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 21 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Plaintiffs do not argue that the Park Service failed to

comply with the procedural requirements of Section 106.

Instead, they assert that the Park Service in its review

process ignored the primary argument presented by plaintiffs. Specifically, during the review process, plaintiffs maintained that the deer management program's effect on Gettysburg's "quiet contemplative atmosphere" was an adverse

effect under the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Plaintiffs based this argument on an excerpt from the National Register for Historic Places Bulletin

on historic battlefields which described battlefields as "places

of quiet contemplation." National Register for Historic

Places Bulletin No. 40, Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering America's Historic Battlefields ("Bulletin No. 40"), Plaintiffs' Exhibit G at 3. Because the SHPO,

the ACHP and the Keeper of the National Register did not

address or even mention Bulletin No. 40 in reviewing the

deer management program, plaintiffs maintain that the finding of no "adverse effect" is unlawful under the APA because a "relevant factor" was not considered. See Motor

Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual, 463

U.S. at 43.8

A review of the record, however, demonstrates that plaintiffs' arguments were considered. While it did not specifically

refer to plaintiffs' argument or to Bulletin No. 40, the Park

Service found in its original determination that there was no

adverse effect on the setting, feeling or association of Gettysburg or Eisenhower from the proposed deer management

program. See Letter from John A. Latschar, Superintendent

of Gettysburg National Military Park to Brenda Barrett, A.R.

at 6317-19 ("Audible effects are temporary, limited, proportionally decreasing, and minimized by muzzle suppressors").

An evaluation of the setting, feeling or association of the

parks necessarily would include an evaluation of the deer

__________

8. On this issue, the parties are like ships passing in the night.

Nowhere in the arguments made by defendants before this Court

do they even address Bulletin No. 40.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 22 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

management program's effect on Gettysburg's "quiet contemplative atmosphere."

When the SHPO and the ACHP reviewed the determination of the Park Service, they received lengthy submissions

from plaintiffs that fully discussed their argument and Bulletin No. 40. See Letter from Katherine Meyer to Dr. Brent

D. Glass and Brenda Barrett, A.R. at 6363-70; Letter from

Katherine Meyer to John Fowler, Executive Director of

Historic Preservation, A.R. at 6380-6435. Each of the reviewers approved the finding of no adverse effect. While the

decisions do not mention Bulletin No. 40, the reviewers did

discuss National Register Bulletin No. 38, addressing the

contention that Gettysburg is a "traditional cultural property." Viewed in context, this was merely a recharacterization

of plaintiffs' argument rather than a neglect of it. See Letter

from Donald Klima, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to Carol Shull, Keeper of the National Register of

Historic Places, A.R. at 6464-65 ("We note that the attributes

cited [by plaintiffs' counsel] include values more often associated with traditional cultural properties, as opposed to other

National Register properties, insofar as they depend, to a

certain degree, upon the perceptions and beliefs of those who

attribute sacred values to this property"); see also Letter

from Carol D. Shull, Keeper of the National Register to

Donald Klima, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

A.R. 6506-07; Letter from Donald Klima, Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, to John A. Latschar, Superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park, A.R. 6504-05.

This recharacterization, coupled with the reviewers' concurrence with the Park Service finding of no "adverse effect" on

Gettysburg's setting, feeling or association, suggests that the

SHPO and the ACHP fully considered plaintiffs' submissions,

including the argument under Bulletin No. 40. The Court

concludes that the Park Service complied with the APA by

considering all relevant factors, including plaintiffs' arguments, in its review of the effects of the deer management

program under the NHPA.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 23 of 24
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

An Order consistent with this Opinion is entered this same

day.

SO ORDERED.

USCA Case #99-5037 Document #497972 Filed: 02/22/2000 Page 24 of 24