APPCOR10535 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_r -z- "Area of the undertaking's potential environmental impact" is defined in 36 CFR 800.2(0) as "... Ch a[ geographical area within which direct and indirect effects generated by the undertaking could reasonably be expected to occur..." This definition was purposely written to conform with the definition adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (44 Fed. Reg. 6069, 1979), which is found in the NEPA regulations in 40 CFR 1508.8. Federal agencies are furCher directed. to integrate [he Section 106 compliance process into any document prepared for NEPA compliance (36 CFR 800.9). NEPA document's are prepared in relation to impact, regardless of land ownership. The Second Circuit in Watch v. Harris, 603 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1979), held that "the mandate of Nf1PA ... is quit- a Tiroad" and that the courts "are no more willing to give a 'crabbed interpretation' to Section 106 of the Act than the courts have been in respect to NEPA." The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Interior Board of Land Appeals' decision in Western Slope Gas Co., 40 IBLA 280, reconsideration denied, 43 IBLA 259 (1979 M-36917, The Extent to Which the National Historic Preservation Act Requires Cultural Resources to be Identifted and Considered in the Grant of a Federal Right-of-Way, December 6, 1979. This case involved a pipeline right-of-way across both Federal and non-Federal land. The Secretary concurred with the solicitor's opinion that Section 106 of NHPA applied to both Federal and non-Federal land, and that the Department is required to comply with Section 106 and the implementing regulations in any case where a Federal action will cause an impact on non-Federal land. This decision has become Departmental Policy. Furthermore, [he courts have upheld this broad definition of "undertaking" and "impact" in cases where no Federal land was involved, but a Federal action was taken. In Hall Count Historical Soc. v. Georgia Dept. of TransporCation, 447 F, Supp. 741 (N.D. GA. 1978 , and Thompson v. Fugate, 347 F. Supp. 120 E,D. Va. 1972), the courts held that NHPA applied to entire highway construction projects, even though some portions of the projects were not being federally subsidized. The reasoning of these cases was that all parts of interconnected projects must be considered together, and not to do so would, in effect, result in the defeat of Congressional intent and of the policies behind the NHPA. In another case, Ely v. Velde, 497 F.2d 252 (4th Cir. 1974) the Fourth Circuit held that a state could not avoid NHPA requirements by requesting a diversion of previously allocated Federal funds from one federal-aid project to another. 2) National regulations al Policy_ Act (NEPA) (P .L. 91-190) and implementing arts Section 101(b) of NEPA declares that one objective of national environmental policy is to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice."