National Historic Register sites

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)
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
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?
Fort Livingston has been having MAJOR issues with erosion since 2002
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
Related flashcards

Types of organization

17 cards


46 cards

Media in Moscow

79 cards

Create Flashcards