The court rejected plaintiffs' challenge to the EIS, finding that although the EIS's discussion of archeological resources had its shortcomings, the Corps had demonstrated that it could proceed with the project and yet avoid harm to the archeological sites. The EIS had stimulated a full examination of the archeological sites sufficient to apprise the decisionmakers of the effects of the project on the sites. 378 F. Supp. at 250-51. Nevertheless, the court continued by finding that compliance with NEPA does not constitute compliance with Executive Order No. 11593. Because the Secretary of the Interior had found the archeological district to be eligible for the Register, the Corps must comply with the requirements of Section 2(b) of the Executive Order. That section required the Corps to reconsider the project and, if it proposed to alter the eligible property substantially, to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment first. Id. at 251.
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction but ordered that the archeological sites not be disturbed until the completion of any appropriate mitigative measures specified by the Council and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Id. at 251-52. [Ed. note: The court did not explain why it crafted the remedy in this way.]
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|