Opinion ID: 3053503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impacts to Historic Properties

Text: NICAN argues that the Agencies violated NEPA by: (1) taking a “phased approach” to how the Project will impact historic properties, and (2) failing to take a “hard look” at how the construction and operation of the Project will impact the Burlington Northern Railroad Depot (the “Depot”). We disagree and hold that the Agencies fully complied with NEPA on this issue. [8] NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of major federal action. See San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 417 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)); see also Coliseum Square Ass’n, Inc. v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215, 223-25 (5th Cir. 2006). NEPA has no independent requirement that an agency examine, separate and apart from any environmental impacts, the impact that a federal action will have on historic properties. NICAN’s reliance on NEPA regulations requiring consideration of environmental impacts to support its historicproperty-impact argument is therefore misplaced. [9] Moreover, although an EIS is required to include “discussions” of “historic and cultural resources,” see 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(g), the Agencies’ 1999 EIS complied with this requirement. The 1999 EIS considered the impacts the Project is anticipated to have on historic properties, primarily focusing on the impacts of the Sand Creek Byway alternative ver- 2 Moreover, because the tunnel alternative was not raised and identified until June 2006, well after the notice and comment periods for the 1999 EIS and the 2005 EA closed, any objection to the failure to consider that alternative has been waived. See Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764-65 (2004) (holding that objections to the failure to consider alternatives beyond those evaluated in the EA were forfeited by failure to identify additional alternatives during notice and comment period). 14114 NORTH IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION v. DOT sus a through-town couplet alternative. The Agencies ultimately chose the Sand Creek Byway alternative, in part because the through-town couplet alternative potentially would have impacted numerous historic sites, whereas the Sand Creek Byway alternative only would potentially impact the Depot and some underground sites.3 The 1999 EIS recognized possible noise and vibration impacts, noted general steps that would be taken to minimize impacts, and indicated that additional surveys and mitigation measures would be undertaken after selection of the preferred route. The 2005 EA included a more detailed noise analysis following testing and modeling, which concluded that there were no significant adverse effects from the Project.4 The 2005 EA also described various mitigation procedures to protect the Depot from other construction activities, including the changes to the Project and ongoing monitoring, developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”).5 [10] We hold that the broad overview in the 1999 EIS of the Project’s impacts on historic properties, coupled with the specific, detailed analysis of the impacts of the Sand Creek Byway, and mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, was more than sufficient to meet NEPA’s requirements in relation to historic properties.6 3 These underground sites could be protected by simply preserving anything unearthed off-site. 4 We defer to the Agencies’ interpretation of these data. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 993-94. 5 In determining whether the potential construction effects would likely be significant, the Agencies are permitted to take into account mitigation measures which reduce the impact of construction. See Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 The sufficiency of the Agencies’ analysis under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303(c), is discussed separately in Section II.A. below. NORTH IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION v. DOT 14115