What is the law with regards to National Historic Register sites and projects that require an EIS?
“The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any
Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under part B of this subchapter a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.” 16 U.S.C.A. § 470f.

Land doesn't have to be on the list, just has to be eligible

Must allow public comment on Historic Register Sites in EIS

Only applies to things that are either federally funded or federally licensed (so should definitely apply to these diversion sites) o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could not rely solely on state historic preservation officer's opinion that camps on lake were not eligible for inclusion in National Register of Historic Places before approving expenditure of federal funds to remove camps destroyed by hurricane, but rather was required by National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) to make independent determination as to camps' eligibility for o o inclusion in Register. Hayne Blvd. Camps Preservation Ass'n, Inc. v. Julich, E.D.La.2001, 143
F.Supp.2d 628.
Where Army Corps of Engineers' sole communication with Massachusetts Historical
Commission consisted of one telephone call to ascertain whether lighthouse adjacent to wetlands had been nominated for listing in National Register of Historic Places, and Corps failed to mention lighthouse at all in its discussion of historic values of area in determining to issue permit for fill of wetlands, noncompliance with this section was not insubstantial. Hough v. Marsh, D.C.Mass.1982, 557 F.Supp. 74 .
Where an agency is planning an action that could affect historic properties directly or indirectly (e.g., a land-use or construction project; a project that could change the way land or buildings are used or developed, or alter the social, cultural, or economic character of a community; and any program of assistance to or the issuance of a license for such activities), identification and evaluation should take place at the earliest possible stage of planning, and be coordinated with the earliest phases of any environmental review carried out under the
National Environmental Policy Act and/or related authorities. Identification and evaluation efforts must be carried out in consultation with SHPOs, Tribal Preservation Officers, local governments, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and the interested public as appropriate (110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs Pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act, 63 FR 20496-01
In the comments to the statute, it largely appears that even where it has been decided that noncompliance was substantial, there is no effect on existing projects. Nothing mentioned forcing a SEIS for noncompliance with historical register sites. This would be a better approach to prevent future sites and even with the sites around Caernarvon doesn’t appear to really give any remedy.

In the 1984 EIS that we went through, they stated that those projects would be optimized not to impact the historical register sites at Fort Livingston and Bayou Des Coquilles. Is it true that they were not impacted? o o
Fort Livingston has been having MAJOR issues with erosion since 2002
 http://ncptt.nps.gov/ft-livingston-grand-terre-island-field-report-2010-03/all/1/
 http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&aid=312
Bayou Des Coquilles
 Nothing called this or Bayou Coquilles on the National Registry list
 Maybe the Jean Lafitte Park, which is bounded on one side by Bayou Coquilles?
Are there any National Historic Register sites near Caernarvon site?

Fort Proctor, North of Shell Beach on Lake Borgne

Kenilworth Plantation House, 2931 Bayou Rd., St. Bernard

Magnolia Mound Ceremonial Site

Sebastopol Plantation, LA 46
Was there an "intensive cultural resource survey" during the planning period of the Caenarvon site as indicated here?

Unable to find any, will have to ask Professor Richards and then continue research