Opinion ID: 202414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance with Section 106 of NHPA

Text: 31 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., requires each federal agency to take responsibility for the impact that its activities may have upon historic resources, and establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [ACHP] . . . to administer the Act. City of Grapevine v. Dep't of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1508 (D.C.Cir.1994). 32 Section 106 of the NHPA requires that the FTA or any other federal agency, in funding a project, 33 take into account the effect of the undertaking [project] 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. 34 The Library and Church are included in the National Register. Under such circumstances, the ACHP regulations require the FTA to determine whether the project will have an adverse effect on the historic properties. 36 C.F.R. § 800.5. If the agency finds an adverse effect, then the agency must follow procedures under section 800.6 designed to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects. 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.5(d)(2); 800.6(a),(b); 800.7 (failure to resolve adverse effects). See 36 C.F.R. § 800.8 (coordination with NEPA, including early 106 review). 35 Section 106 is a procedural statute that requires agency decisionmakers to stop, look, and listen, but not to reach particular outcomes. Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Warwick Sewer Authority, 334 F.3d 161, 166 (1st Cir.2003). 36 Plaintiffs argue that for various reasons the requirements of section 106 were not met. Plaintiffs first contend that the FTA committed procedural error during the process leading up to the no adverse effect finding. Plaintiffs complain that the FTA did not conduct an independent analysis of historical impacts of the undertaking and instead improperly relied on the determination of the Carolan Report and the MBTA. However, the regulations expressly permit an agency to use the services of applicants, consultants, or designees to prepare information, analysis and recommendations, 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(a)(3); see also Narragansett Indian Tribe, 334 F.3d at 168 (The regulations themselves explicitly contemplate the use of consultants to provide analyses for use in the § 106 process.). 37 Although the plaintiffs urge that there is no indication that the FTA made the required independent determination, there is no specific requirement in the statute, the regulations or the APA that the FTA provide detailed explanations for its decision or use any particular form of words signifying that it made an independent determination. 4 Moreover, we are required to presume that the FTA abided by the statutory requirements in the absence of any showing that it did not do so. Bowen v. Am. Hosp. Assn., 476 U.S. 610, 626-27, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 90 L.Ed.2d 584 (1986); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). As the district court found here, [p]laintiffs offer no credible evidence indicating that the FTA did not conduct an independent review, or that it `rubber stamped' the MBTA's conclusion of `no adverse effects.' 38 We also see no merit in plaintiffs' contention that the documentation provided to the MHC by the FTA did not adequately explain the basis of the no adverse effect finding. They rely on regulations that require that the documentation enable reviewing parties to understand [the] basis of the adverse effect finding as required by the regulations. 36 C.F.R. § 800.11(a); see also 36 C.F.R. § 800.11(e) (requiring documentation to support an adverse effect finding). The plaintiffs' primary contention is that the underlying documentation did not address alternative locations for the elevators, but there is nothing in the statute or regulations that requires the consideration of alternatives in making the no adverse effect determination. Plaintiffs' fallback position is that the document did not consider elevator location at all in reaching the no adverse effects finding. This is not correct. The documents, including the Carolan Report, described in detail the basis for the finding and considered the location of the elevators in making the finding. 5 39 Turning to the merits, the plaintiffs also contend that the no adverse effect finding is not sustainable. Again, we disagree. 40 Plaintiffs argue that the regulations promulgated under section 106 compel a finding of adverse effect. Their principal contention is that locating the inbound elevator on the Library steps will have an adverse effect on the Library. 41 The section 106 regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 800.5 (Assessment of adverse effects), set forth the criteria for determining whether an action will have an adverse effect. Section 800.5(a) provides that the agency official shall apply the criteria of adverse effect to historic properties within the area of potential adverse effects. Section 800.5(a)(1) (Criteria of adverse effect) provides: 42 An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association . . . . (emphasis added). 43 The FTA relied on various documents to support its no adverse effect finding, including its implicit conclusion that the integrity of the Library was not compromised. The plaintiffs argue that the 1995 Report would only support a finding of no diminishment if the original option E had been adopted (using matching headhouses on either side of the library) and that the report did not support such a finding with respect to the final plan that eliminated the matching headhouse. Plaintiffs correctly point out that the 1995 Report concluded that the elimination of the matching headhouse would seriously compromise the explicit symmetry of the composition. (Emphasis added) 6 However, the 1995 Report was not addressed to federal statutory requirements, and the FTA primarily relied on the later Carolan report, which was prepared after the elimination of the matching headhouse, for this purpose. The Carolan Report described the historic setting of Copley Station at length, and concluded that the selected designs will not interfere with existing historic architectural structures. This report amply supports the agency's conclusion that the inbound elevator would not have an adverse effect, i.e., that it would not diminish the integrity of the historical sites or change the character of features of the Library that contribute to its historical significance. The plaintiffs have failed to show that this finding, on which the FTA relied, was arbitrary or capricious. 44 Plaintiffs also urge that, even if the FTA was not arbitrary and capricious in concluding that the proposed location of the inbound elevator would not diminish the integrity of the library, section 800.5(a)(2), which lists specific examples of adverse effects, compels an adverse effect finding. This section provides that: 45 [a]dverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to: 46 (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; 47 (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines . . . . 48 Plaintiffs argue that locating the inbound elevator on the Library steps has an adverse effect on the Library because disturbing the Library steps constitutes [p]hysical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property under subpart (i). 49 This interpretation is inconsistent with the structure of the regulations. Under subpart (ii) adverse effects include [a]lteration of a property, including . . . provision of handicapped access . . . that is not consistent with the Secretary [of the Interior's] standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 C.F.R. part 68) and applicable guidelines. 800.5(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, subpart (ii) effectively recognizes that alterations consistent with the Secretary's regulations will not create an adverse effect if they are designed to secure handicapped access. In this respect the regulations are evidently designed to avoid potential conflicts with the requirements of the ADA. If subpart (ii) is to be given its full effect, subpart (i) cannot compel an adverse effect finding when a property is physically altered to secure handicapped access in a manner that could be said to damage the property. Rather, subpart (i) must be read to refer only to damage that does not come within the purposes enumerated in subpart (ii). In other words, alterations for the provision of handicapped access are governed exclusively by subpart (ii). 50 We similarly reject the plaintiffs' contentions that the placement of the inbound elevator could violate subsection (iv) ([c]hange of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance) and subsection (v) ([i]ntroduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features). Again, if the project complied with subsection (ii), it cannot be argued that it failed to comply with subsections (iv) and (v). 51 We find no merit in plaintiffs' confusing contention that there was an adverse effect within the meaning of subpart (ii) itself. Plaintiffs have not shown that the alterations to the Library steps are inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties set out in 36 C.F.R. part 68. 52 We finally reject plaintiffs' argument that the placement of the outbound elevator would have an adverse effect on Old South Church; and that placement of both elevators would have an adverse effect on the design of the Back Bay region of the city, which itself appears in the National Register of Historic Places; and that the rehabilitation of the existing wrought iron entrance would constitute an adverse effect under subpart (ii). The FTA's finding of no adverse effect encompassed the project as a whole, including both the inbound and the outbound elevator. The plaintiffs have failed to show that this finding was arbitrary or capricious. 53 We conclude that the agency's finding of no adverse effect must be sustained.