54 U.S.C. § 306107

Planning and actions to minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 54 CasesGoogle Scholar

Prior to the approval of any Federal undertaking that may directly and adversely affect any National Historic Landmark, the head of the responsible Federal agency shall to the maximum extent possible undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the landmark. The head of the Federal agency shall afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to the undertaking.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Trust, 811 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Presidio Historical Ass'n v. Presidio Trust, 811 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 54 U.S.C.A. § 306107 . Because the Trust complied with its obligations under both statutes, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Trust.”

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite, 311 F. Supp. 3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 54 U.S.C. § 306107 . At issue in this case is whether Section 110 applies and whether the Corps met its obligation under the statute.”

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite, 916 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the Conservation Groups present three arguments: that due to the significance of the Project's impacts, the Corps was required to prepare an EIS; that the Corps's alternatives analyses fell short of the requirements imposed by both NEPA and the Clean Water Act; and…”

Maudlin v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 138 F. Supp. 3d 994 (S.D. Ind. 2015). “54 U.S.C. § 306107 . The ACHP refers to Sections 106 and 110(f) and their accompanying consultation procedures, collectively, as the “Section 106 Process.”

Pres. Soc'y of Newport Cnty. v. Haaland (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 5× “” 54 U.S.C. § 306107 . In so doing, the agency “should at least ‘consider prudent and feasible alternatives’ to avoid adverse effects.”

Nat'l Trust for Historic Pres. v. Semonite (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 3× “” 54 U.S.C. § 306107 . At issue in this case is whether Section 110 applies and whether the Corps met its obligation under the statute.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.