54 U.S.C. § 306108
Effect of undertaking on historic property
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, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property. 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 80
cases (38 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: Narragansett Indian Tribe v. RI Dep't of Transp., 903 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2018).
Narragansett Indian Tribe v. RI Dep't of Transp., 903 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2018). “54 U.S.C. § 306108 ; see also Narragansett Indian Tribe v.”
Havasupai Tribe v. Heather Provencio, 906 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2018). “” 54 U.S.C. § 306108 . The panel held that Red Butte was not a “historic property” eligible for inclusion on the National Register until 2010, and as a result, the Act did not obligate the Forest Service to take the site into account when it conducted a full section 106…”
Ctr for Biological Diversity v. Ashton Carter, 868 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2017). “See 54 U.S.C. § 306108 . In this Circuit, plaintiffs must bring procedural violations of NHPA Section 106 under the APA, and we have recognized Section 106 to provide procedural rights.”
Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Pres. Off. v. FERC, 949 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “I Section 106 of the Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , “requires federal agencies to consider the effect of their actions on certain historic or culturally significant sites and properties (expressly including those of Indian tribes) and to seek ways to mitigate those…”
Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Foxx, 157 F. Supp. 3d 573 (E.D. La. 2016). “Section 106 of the NHPA, now codified at 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , prohibits federal agencies from approving the expenditure of federal funds on an undertaking without taking into account “the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.”
Pub. Employees for Env't Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “§ 1337 (p), the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.”
Camden Cnty. Historical Soc'y v. State, 371 F. Supp. 3d 187 (2019). “) The Historical Society had sought emergent relief before the State Court to prevent the destruction of such a treasure, but the Historical Society alleges that the State ignored its application and instead, "initiated a furtive and expedited demolition" of the house.”
Stop B2H Coalition v. Dept. of Energy, 525 P.3d 864 (Or. 2023). “That condition states: 21 The National Historic Preservation Act, 54 USC § 306108 , defines “historic property” as districts, sites, or buildings “included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register [of Historic Places].”
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite, 311 F. Supp. 3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “54 U.S.C. § 306108 . Regulations promulgated by the ACHP lay out a procedure for the federal agency to follow in order to comply with the NHPA.”
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 896 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “In Contention 1B, the Tribe charged that the NRC Staff had failed to fulfill its responsibilities regarding consultation with Native American tribes under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. § 306108 . For a variety of reasons, the Board agreed that the…”
Wildearth Guardians v. Heather Provencio, 923 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2019). “4 (b)(1); see also 54 U.S.C. § 306108 . 8 “Like NEPA, ‘[s]ection 106 of NHPA is a “stop, look, and listen” provision that requires each federal agency to consider the effects of its programs.”
Protect Our Parks, Inc. v. Pete Buttigieg, 39 F.4th 389 (7th Cir. 2022). “§§ 4331–47, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 306108 , and other similar stat- utes.”
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.