Environmental – Page 36

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. § 306108, requires federal agencies to consult with Indian tribes and other interested parties to assess and mitigate the potential adverse impacts that a project requiring federal approval may have on sites of historic and cultural significance.

The question presented here is whether the NHPA imposes a continuing obligation upon federal agencies to engage in consultation under Section 106 when an agency maintains supervision of an ongoing project, and has the opportunity to require changes to mitigate adverse impacts after the initial approval.

Lower court materials here.

Update in Gold King Mine Release Case

March 27, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in In re Gold King Mine Release in San Juan, County on August 5, 2015 (D.N.M.):

166 DCt Order re EPA Contractors

167 DCT Order re Harrison Western

168 DCT Order re Sunnyside Gold

Earlier materials here.

SCOTUS Decides Sturgeon v. Frost II

March 26, 2019March 26, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Materials here.

Update — footnote 2 of the majority:

As noted earlier, the Ninth Circuit has held in three cases—the so called Katie John trilogy—that the term “public lands,” when used in ANILCA’s subsistence-fishing provisions, encompasses navigable waters like the Nation River. See Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F. 3d 698 (1995); John v. United States, 247 F. 3d 1032 (2001) (en banc); John v. United States, 720 F. 3d 1214 (2013); supra, at 12. Those provisions are not at issue in this case, and we therefore do not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s holdings that the Park Service may regulate subsistence fishing on navigable waters. See generally Brief for State of Alaska as Amicus Curiae 29–35 (arguing that this case does not implicate those decisions); Brief for Ahtna, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 30–36 (same).