• free casino slots online

    Nettler Inne

    Review of: Nettler Inne

    Reviewed by:
    Rating:
    5
    On 11.12.2019
    Last modified:11.12.2019

    Summary:

    Nettler Inne

    Otto Freund), Schuber leicht berieben und bestossen, innen einzelne Fleckchen. Insgesamt gutes und sauberes Exemplar. Sprache: Deutsch Gewicht in. Fachberater/innen Innendienst. Reklamationsmanagement. Jana Mettler. Tel.: 0 65 33/93 [email protected] Fachberater. Engagierte Mitarbeiter-/ innen im Bereich Betriebsmittelkonstruktion. Planung Karosseriebau. Qualifizierte Mitarbeiter-/innen für Robotersimulation und.

    Nettler Inne Gartenausstellung

    Autor*innen · Paul Nettl. Paul Nettl. Paul Nettl (–) war Musikwissenschaftler. W. A. Mozart. Zuletzt erschienen. W. A. Mozart. In Zusammenarbeit mit. Paul Nettl, ein guter Kenner der Biographie des großen Komponisten Ludwig van Beethoven, hat diese Zeugnisse zusammengestellt und, das Verständnis des. Fachberater/innen Innendienst. Reklamationsmanagement. Jana Mettler. Tel.: 0 65 33/93 [email protected] Fachberater. Da bleibt nur eins: Annett Erler – unsere „Nettl“, wie sie von ihren Kollegen/innen liebevoll genannt wird – muss nochmal richtig überrascht. Ihr Meisterbetrieb seit im Raum Stuttgart, Leinfelden-Echterdingen u. Filderstadt. Entdecken Sie in unserer Ausstellung: Markisen, Fenster. Albrecht SW 35 – Adapter DE Puissance & Wechselrichter (Innen, AC auf DC, Radio, weiß). 4,6 von 5 Sternen 24 · 38,95 €38,95€. Paul Nettl, geboren am Jan. , war eines von vier Kindern des Besitzers einer Papierfabrik in Hohenelbe (Vrchlabí) in Böhmen, dessen Familie seit.

    Nettler Inne

    Engagierte Mitarbeiter-/ innen im Bereich Betriebsmittelkonstruktion. Planung Karosseriebau. Qualifizierte Mitarbeiter-/innen für Robotersimulation und. Autor*innen · Paul Nettl. Paul Nettl. Paul Nettl (–) war Musikwissenschaftler. W. A. Mozart. Zuletzt erschienen. W. A. Mozart. In Zusammenarbeit mit. Ihr Meisterbetrieb seit im Raum Stuttgart, Leinfelden-Echterdingen u. Filderstadt. Entdecken Sie in unserer Ausstellung: Markisen, Fenster.

    Nettler Inne - Alle Bücher von Paul Nettl

    Jana Koch. Anke Nettler. Versandinformationen: Die Versandkostenpauschalen basieren auf Sendungen mit einem durchschnittlichen Gewicht. Um unsere Angebote weiter zu verbessern, erfassen wir anonymisierte Daten für Statistiken und Analysen. Nettler Inne Andrea Birgit Winkler. McTurtle Salierring 25, Köln Telefon: www. Jutta Becker. Nach einer wunderschönen Zeit und gutem Essen dachte sie wiederum, nun gehe es entspannt nach Hause. Falls das von Ihnen bestellte Buch besonders schwer oder sperrig sein sollte, werden wir Sie informieren, falls zusätzliche Versandkosten anfallen. Überzeugen Sie sich Ex Gf Free der hohen Qualität unserer Produkte und probieren Sie deren Handhabung Vip Clup Funktionalität selbst aus. Länderspezifische Zölle sind nicht in den Versandkosten oder im Artikelpreis enthalten Spanische Weihnachtslotterie Zahlen sind vom Käufer zu tragen. Mehr Information.

    Nettler Inne beta version Video

    Neteller and skrill , money transfer options remove on 14th October watch full video Wid Hodges 8 Rollenspiele Download Kostenlos 8 8. Tho: Collins 5 unpaid: 5 5. Wilkinson 3 unpaid: 3 3. Judith Leigh 3 unpaid: 3 3. Joseph Taylor 9 paid: 9 9. Lady Hubland 4 unpaid: 4 Em then 4. Langley Free Slot Game unpaid: 6 new built 6. Otto Freund), Schuber leicht berieben und bestossen, innen einzelne Fleckchen. Insgesamt gutes und sauberes Exemplar. Sprache: Deutsch Gewicht in. Engagierte Mitarbeiter-/ innen im Bereich Betriebsmittelkonstruktion. Planung Karosseriebau. Qualifizierte Mitarbeiter-/innen für Robotersimulation und. Um unsere Angebote weiter zu verbessern, erfassen wir anonymisierte Daten für Statistiken und Analysen. Diese Services und Technologien werden genutzt, um Ihnen personalisierte Inhalte, Online Black Jack Game zu Ihren Interessen anzuzeigen. XING members with similar profiles. Marco Denzer Tel. Es war einfach wunderbar und ein Texas Hol Em, den Nettl sicher noch lange in Erinnerung behalten wird. Jana Koch. Mai Somit können wir Ihnen Angebote präsentieren, die für Sie besonders relevant sind. Markus M. Sabine Reichert.

    Rich: Trim 19 paid: 19 Tho Talbott 6 paid: 6 6. Henry Brigham 4 paid: 4 4. Smallman 14 paid: 14 Wm: Sharp 4 paid: 4 4.

    Tho: Caterell 3 unpaid: 3 Em: then 3. Samll: Hunt 4 unpaid: 4 4. Jno: Rose 6 paid: 6 6. Jane Low 4 paid: 4 4.

    Wm: Butler 8 paid: 8 8. Robert Fetton 3 paid: 3 3. Jno: Glover 4 unpaid: 4 Em then 4. Jno: Mumford 3 paid: 3 3.

    Frothingham 4 unpaid: 4 4. Tho: Leach 4 paid: 4 4. Jno: Stratford 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4. Tho: Dekens 10 paid: 10 Wid Sparkes 11 unpaid: 11 James Pickes 6 paid: 6 6.

    Powdrell Smyth 7 paid: 7 7. Eliz: Banckes 7 paid: 7 7. Wm: Battersby 5 paid: 5 5. Theo: Hinchmarsh 6 unpaid: 6 6. Wid Pemdrey 3 unpaid: 3 3. Wid Clarke 2 unpaid: 2 2.

    Wm Williams 8 unpaid: 8 8. Geo: Carleton 6 unpaid: 6 6. Tho: Sutton 7 unpaid: 7 7. Wm Jenckes 3 unpaid: 3 3. Jane Chandler 3 unpaid: 3 3.

    Arthur Cooley 3 paid: 3 3. Rich: Graybey 5 paid: 5 5. Mercy Gray 4 paid: 4 4. Jno: Wursley 4 paid: 4 4.

    Major Bywater 9 unpaid: 9 Em: then 9. Rich: Kinersley 4 paid: 4 4. Isaac Haiz 5 paid: 5 5. Arthur Holingsworth 6 paid: 6 6. Daniell Gray 10 paid: 10 Wid Bery 1 unpaid: 1 E 1.

    Lovell 1 unpaid: 1 no d: 1. Wid Fox 1 unpaid: 1 1. Mary Moody 3 paid: 3 3. Wm: Gardner 3 paid: 3 3. James Portworth 3 paid: 3 3. Dorothy Bonamy 6 paid: 6 6.

    Jno: Austine 2 unpaid: 2 2. James Stringfeild 4 unpaid: 4 4. Tho: Webb 2 unpaid: 2 Em: then 2. Wm: Mills 2 unpaid: 2 2. Peter Bustard 2 paid: 2 2.

    Rich Smith 3 paid: 3 3. Ann Gray 7 unpaid: 7 shutts dore 7. Joseph Wells 7 unpaid: 7 Emp: then 7.

    Henry Pitts 2 paid: 2 2. Wm: Shoreing 3 unpaid: 3 Em: then 3. Wm Serchfeild 2 paid: 2 2. Biggs 1 paid: 1 1. Jonath: Robinson 2 unpaid: 2 Em: then 2.

    Eliz Francis 2 unpaid: 2 2. Tho: Yates 2 paid: 2 2. Wm Strange 2 paid: 2 2. Eliz: Kebble 2 paid: 2 2. John Griffin 2 paid: 2 2.

    Wid Greenwood 3 unpaid: 3 3. Jno: Cardiffe 10 paid: 10 Wooten 8 paid: 8 8. Edwd Clough 3 paid: 3 3. Wm: Sumner 3 paid: 3 3.

    Rich: Crichloe 3 paid: 3 3. Able Miller 2 unpaid: 2 Em then 2. Rich Robson 5 paid: 5 5. Wid Robson 1 unpaid: 1 Em then 1.

    Tho: Flaxmore 6 unpaid: 6 6. Robert Spencer 4 paid: 4 4. Wm: Hill 2 unpaid: 2 2. Rowland Porter 3 paid: 3 3.

    Wm: Colston 4 paid: 4 4. Jno Bartlett 2 unpaid: 2 Em then 2. Robt Hewitt 2 unpaid: 2 2. Nicholas 3 paid: 3 3. James Deane 3 paid: 3 3.

    Rich: Harding 3 unpaid: 3 Em: then 3. James Cooper 2 unpaid: 2 2. Jno: Chrichley 3 unpaid: 3 3. Wm Hillier 3 paid: 3 3. Jno: Scarvill 6 paid: 6 6.

    Judith Robinson 6 paid: 6 6. Jno: Ashton 9 unpaid: 9 E then 9. Wm: Treswallen 6 unpaid: 6 E [then] 6. Nicho: Hewitt 2 paid: 2 2. Jno: Phillips 3 unpaid: 3 E then 3.

    Tho: Smith 2 unpaid: 2 puld downe at the fire 2. Decket 7 paid: 7 7. Edmd: Bilsby 4 paid: 4 4. Jno: Gardner 6 paid: 6 6. Wm: Wallis 6 paid: 6 6.

    Jno: Granger 6 unpaid: 6 Em: then 6. James Cole 6 paid: 6 6. Wm: Sweatman 8 paid: 8 8. Tho: Mee 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4.

    Hester Feild 4 paid: 4 4. Walter Harding 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4. Edwd Pattason 4 unpaid: 4 Em then 4.

    Geo: Robins 4 unpaid: 4 4. Burton 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4. Tho: Clarke 4 unpaid: 4 4. Youdun 5 unpaid: 5 Forename unclear; 5.

    Tho Hunt 4 unpaid: 4 4. Radish 4 unpaid: 4 4. Rich: Bousell 4 paid: 4 4. Simnybanck Giles 4 unpaid: 4 at Sea in service 4.

    James Philips 2 unpaid: 2 no dist: 2. Tho Lee 4 unpaid: 4 4. Robert Fiff 3 unpaid: 3 Em then 3. Fra: Parr 7 paid: 7 7.

    Wm: Harrison 8 paid: 8 8. Jno: Mason 7 paid: 7 7. Edwd Turnbins 4 paid: 4 4. Geo: Bornwell 4 unpaid: 4 Em then 4. Ann Winter 6 paid: 6 6.

    Jacob Tonson 9 paid: 9 9. Samll: Cob 12 paid: 12 Jno Freeman 8 paid: 8 8. Wm Petty 8 paid: 8 8. Wm Worleidg 9 paid: 9 9.

    Elinor Williams 9 paid: 9 9. Jno: Wyth 4 paid: 4 4. Jno Baker 10 paid: 10 Rich Spoure 9 paid: 9 9. Jno: Jones 4 paid: 4 4.

    Tho: Gillet 11 paid: 11 Jno Hack 12 paid: 12 Wm Grudgfeild 19 paid: 19 Samll Lengat 1 paid: 1 1. Treviliak 4 paid: 4 4.

    Lady Hubland 4 unpaid: 4 Em then 4. Tho: Creswell 4 paid: 4 4. Tho: Sculthorp 5 paid: 5 5. Wm Baxter 5 paid: 5 5. Tho Brookes 5 unpaid: 5 5.

    Samll: Herrick 5 paid: 5 5. Jno: Browne 5 paid: 5 5. Gilbert Walbanck 5 paid: 5 5. Tho Browne 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4.

    Rich: Buller 9 paid: 9 9. Praise Barebone 8 paid: 8 8. Tho Arnold 12 paid: 12 Rich: Powell 15 paid: 15 Rich Sutton 13 paid: 13 Edwd Langley 8 paid: 8 8.

    Kemp 8 paid: 8 8. Allen Wilson 16 paid: 16 Henry Foster 4 paid: 4 4. Thomas Harding 7 unpaid: 7 Em: then 7. Edwd Lightfoot 9 unpaid: 9 9.

    Samll: Peach 7 paid: 7 7. Ann Beamond 3 paid: 3 3. Fran: Patrick 2 paid: 2 2. Phill Williams 5 paid: 5 5. Jno: Broxton 3 paid: 3 3.

    Fran: Higgans 7 paid: 7 7. Fra: Price 9 paid: 9 9. Rich: Shipton 7 paid: 7 7. Jno: Hunt 3 paid: 3 3. James Junior 3 paid: 3 3. Jonas Church 16 paid: 16 Edwd Butler 6 paid: 6 6.

    Morris 7 unpaid: 7 Em: then 7. Raven 6 unpaid: 6 6. Esqr Bartho Beale 7 unpaid: 7 Empty then 7. James Simms 11 paid: 11 James Bradshaw 9 unpaid: 9 pd to Mr Crich 9.

    Nathanll: Wheatley 8 unpaid: 8 Em: then 8. Math: Dyton 10 unpaid: 10 pd to Crich also Panchford 9 unpaid: 9 out of Towne 9. Watkins 13 paid: 13 Rich Welder 8 paid: 8 8.

    Wm: Cooke 9 paid: 9 9. Ciprian Smith 6 paid: 6 6. Rich: Lovett 6 paid: 6 6. Tookefeild 10 paid: 10 Rich: Wilson 9 paid: 9 9.

    Jno: Downes 7 paid: 7 7. Arth: Bickerton 9 paid: 9 9. Bath 7 paid: 7 7. Adam Caine 16 paid: 16 Henry Howard 5 paid: 5 5. Marmad: Fleming 18 paid: 18 James Bennet 5 paid: 5 5.

    Fra: Godfrey 3 paid: 3 3. Anselme Ansell 5 paid: 5 5. Sarah Simkin 5 paid: 5 5. Tobias Bayly 8 paid: 8 8. Jno: Hunter 15 paid: 15 Tho: Freake 3 paid: 3 3.

    Randall Throughton 13 paid: 13 Wid Hind 12 paid: 12 Tho Greene 2 unpaid: 2 2. Edwd Dodds 7 unpaid: 7 Em: then 7.

    Esqr: Wm: Brownlow 10 paid: 10 Wm: Perkes 8 paid: 8 8. Christo: Mattason 8 paid: 8 8. Jno: Weedon 4 paid: 4 4. Esqr: Wm: Hilton 16 paid: 16 Esqr: Joseph Keble 11 paid: 11 Wm: Ferman 6 paid: 6 6.

    Robt Atkins 9 paid: 9 9. Raph Wild 8 paid: 8 8. Samll: Warrwick 7 paid: 7 7. Jarvis Heydon 6 paid: 6 6. Jno: Calcut 8 paid: 8 8.

    Wm: Barret 6 unpaid: 6 Empty then 6. Ann Arthur 6 paid: 6 6. Tho: Clifford 5 paid: 5 5. Wm: Gunton 10 unpaid: 10 Em: then Rich: Butler 3 unpaid: 3 3.

    Wm: Turbet 3 unpaid: 3 Em: then 3. Wm: Puller 4 paid: 4 4. Newman 4 unpaid: 4 4. Margt Benns 4 paid: 4 4. Serjent Newdigate 17 paid: 17 Rich: Barnet 9 unpaid: 9 Em: then 9.

    Wm: Stanton 6 unpaid: 6 Em: then 6. Wm: Thompson 39 paid: 39 Tho: Hatton 9 paid: 9 9. Rich: Hall 8 paid: 8 8. Lambert 10 paid: 10 Aldr: Barker 10 unpaid: 10 Em then Tho: Tomkins 7 paid: 7 7.

    Jno Smith 8 unpaid: 8 E [then]; 8. Wm: Hastings 7 unpaid: 7 E [then]; 7. Robert Flackman 7 unpaid: 7 E [then]; 7. Leo: Street 42 paid: 42 Faith Wiltshire 8 paid: 8 8.

    Wm: Taylor 5 paid: 5 5. Tho: Smith 29 paid: 29 Jno Cooper 7 paid: 7 7. Judah Hudson 7 paid: 7 7.

    Christo: Plomer 9 paid: 9 9. Try 9 unpaid: 9 Em: then 9. Daniell Hart 9 paid: 9 9. Midgley 11 paid: 11 Geo: Beane 8 unpaid: 8 Em: then 8.

    Hugh Goodyeare 9 paid: 9 9. Bernard Fenton 17 paid: 17 Christo: Bishop 6 paid: 6 6. Valentine Bayley 9 paid: 9 9.

    Jno: Goodyeare 9 paid: 9 9. Henry Hankes 8 paid: 8 8. Jno: Coleman 4 paid: 4 4. Wid Jones 3 unpaid: 3 no dis: 3. Joshua Sands 3 unpaid: 3 Emp: then 3.

    Jno: Husbands 3 unpaid: 3 3. Dr Tho: Kirle 8 paid: 8 8. Wm: Wansford 6 paid: 6 6. Wm: Head 4 unpaid: 4 no dist: 4. Edwd Lutterell 5 paid: 5 5.

    Tho: Michell 4 unpaid: 4 Em: then 4. Sr: Robt Nevet 12 paid: 12 Jno: Forster 5 unpaid: 5 E 5. Arthur Smith 10 paid: 10 Rich: Wells 10 unpaid: 10 E Hester Smith 10 paid: 10 Fra: Terringham 3 paid: 3 3.

    Jno: Elphicke 7 paid: 7 7. Geo: Simmons 8 paid: 8 8. Jno: Lucas 8 paid: 8 8. Simon Pennett 6 unpaid: 6 Em: then 6.

    Countess of Monmouth 25 paid: 25 Jno: Bradshaw 14 unpaid: 14 Em: then Stoughton Arnold 6 paid: 6 6.

    Esqr Wm. Dormer 6 paid: 6 6. Esqr James Herbert 9 paid: 9 9. Wid Parris 7 paid: 7 7. Rich: Chively 10 unpaid: 10 E Law: Wright 4 paid: 4 4.

    James Ravencroft 14 paid: 14 Hunter 11 paid: 11 Rich Boothby 11 paid: 11 Tho Ling 13 paid: 13 Fra : Gayer 6 unpaid: 6 Em: then 6. The Lady Osborne 12 unpaid: 12 Rich: Sheffield 4 paid: 4 4.

    Wm: Legg 3 paid: 3 3. Jos: Finch 3 unpaid: 3 a pensoner 3. Danll: Nayler 4 paid: 4 4. Law: Dier 7 unpaid: 7 Em: then 7.

    Tho: Moland 4 paid: 4 4. Eliz Smith 5 paid: 5 5. Nich: Archpole 6 paid: 6 6. Geo: Gamiell 6 paid: 6 6. James Monteth 6 paid: 6 6.

    Rich: Larking 7 paid: 7 7. Robt Jones 7 unpaid: 7 Em: then 7. Tho: Capper 12 paid: 12 Loyonell Bayly 10 paid: 10 Bernard 11 unpaid: 11 Em: then Ralph Massey 10 paid: 10 Esqr Joseph Allife 11 paid: 11 Tho Blackden 1 paid: 1 1.

    Joseph Taylor 9 paid: 9 9. Cipr: Southank 9 paid: 9 9. James Lovet 4 paid: 4 4. Wm: Callis 5 paid: 5 5. Jeremy Constable 4 paid: 4 4. Tho: Hulstone 8 unpaid: 8 8.

    Mathew Dixon 8 paid: 8 8. Tho Harris 8 paid: 8 8. Stedman 6 unpaid: 6 out of towne 6. Esqr Jno: Sanford 8 unpaid: 8 Em then 8. Tho: Maxwell 11 paid: 11 Rich Worrell 4 unpaid: 4 no di: 4.

    Hugh Sturton 4 unpaid: 4 came since 4. Anne Barr 7 unpaid: 7 7. Wid Richardson 11 paid: 11 Fabian Phillips 11 paid: 11 Esqr Tho.

    Skipwith 11 paid: 11 Esqr Robert Payton 11 unpaid: 11 out of towne Sr Fra: Goodrick 9 paid: 9 9. Sr Denis Asbornham 10 paid: 10 Jno: Case 10 paid: 10 Sr: Justinian Lewin 11 paid: 11 Henry Capell 13 paid: 13 Lady Ann Harris 12 paid: 12 Sir Mundi Bramstone 14 paid: 14 Tho: Langstone 10 paid: 10 Sir Edw: Turner 18 unpaid: 18 prtends paymt, but no receite Esq Edward Atkins 8 paid: 8 8.

    Esqr George Farmer 14 paid: 14 Jno Fairedale 9 paid: 9 9. While Section of the NHPA and NEPA are not identical, many courts fruitfully compare them, and their similarities shed light on the issue of agency action and inaction.

    See McMillan Park Committee v. In passing the NHPA, Congress inserted historic preservation concerns into all aspects of agency decision making by requiring agency heads to "take into account the effect of [any] undertaking" on historic buildings and structures, 16 U.

    Both statutes require the government to conduct certain procedural and informational activities before embarking on projects that might affect, respectively, historic sites or the environment.

    Neither NEPA nor Section mandates a particular outcome of governmental decisions; rather each defines the processes by which those decisions must be made.

    See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F. The obligation to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA is triggered by the proposal of a "major federal action," 42 U.

    Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus, F. In Defenders of Wildlife, the court ruled that the Secretary of the Interior's inaction specifically, his failure to exercise his power to prevent the State of Alaska from killing wolves did not constitute a "federal action" requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

    In , the Army decided not to excess the Historic District because the costs were too high and the process would take too long.

    Sheridan Kalorama Historical Assoc. Indeed, the record is replete with evidence attesting to the consideration given over the years to the decision whether to excess the District, [13] and defendants acknowledge that an affirmative decision was made in not to do so.

    Yet there were no Section consultations with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Capital Planning Commission or the various Maryland state agencies about the overall disposition of the Historic District until The Court concludes that the decision not to excess the District was an undertaking under Section It therefore should have been made in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

    Plaintiffs contend that Walter Reed not only disregarded the Section consultation process but also violated the substantive mandate contained in Section to repair and maintain the buildings in the District.

    Agency obligations under Section , however, are far less defined than those under Section , and the parties vigorously disagree as to their scope and effect.

    The contested language of Section reads as follows: "Each agency shall undertake, consistent with the preservation of such [historic] properties and the mission of the agency and the professional standards established pursuant to section a g of this title, any preservation, as may be necessary to carry out this section.

    In addition, each agency "shall ensure" that properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places "are managed and maintained in a way that considers the preservation of their historic [and] architectural In this case, the District was listed in the National Register in and the Army's most significant decision was taken in when the Army decided not to excess the District but rather to retain control over it.

    That decision, and the ongoing policy thereafter to treat the historic preservation of the District's buildings as a low priority, gave rise to much of the deterioration now complained of by plaintiffs.

    See Survey at 3, A. The meaning of Section is not clear on its face. On the one hand, the use of the word "shall" in Sections a 1 and 2 suggests that agencies have a mandatory obligation to engage in preservation, separate and apart from their obligations under Section On the other hand, the section refers several times to the Section consultation process and uses the word "consider" three times in describing an agency's responsibilities.

    It also provides that the agency must act consistent with its "missions and mandates. Reading the section as a whole, this suggests that Section represents an elucidation and extension of the Section process but not its replacement by new and independent substantive obligations of a different kind.

    Although the District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted the NHPA on several occasions, none of its decisions has addressed the scope of Section a or the federal government's obligations thereunder.

    In Lee v. The court concluded that the requirements of the Act "are triggered only when approval or financial assistance from a federal agency are involved.

    The court recognized that "Congress intended these provisions to have a limited reach; they are aimed solely at discouraging federal agencies from ignoring preservation values in projects they initiate, approve funds for or otherwise control.

    While the court construed two subsections of Section although not subsection a at issue here , it did so specifically in order to answer the question of whether the statute applied to the District of Columbia project at all.

    As a result, the court did not describe what the federal government's obligations would have been under Section a if that section of the statute had in fact been implicated.

    In McMillan Park Committee v. In Sheridan Kalorama Historical Assoc. While each of these decisions might be read to imply that the only obligations imposed by the NHPA flow from Section because the court did not mention any obligation arising under Section , the Court declines to infer such a sweeping conclusion from the mere absence of discussion.

    The legislative history of Section , which was added to the NHPA in , provides limited guidance as to the section's purposes.

    See H. The House Report describes the aims of Section in relevant part as follows:. The Court concludes that Section a cannot be read to create new substantive preservationist obligations separate and apart from the overwhelmingly procedural thrust of the NHPA as described by every court that has considered the Act.

    In interpreting other subsections of Section , the D. The court pointed out that when Section was added to the NHPA in , Congress made clear that the new section "is not intended to change the preservation responsibilities of Federal agencies as required by any other laws, executive orders or regulations.

    Plaintiffs' interpretation would create vast new preservationist responsibilities unrelated to the consultation provisions of Section to which the rest of Section constantly refers.

    Indeed, under plaintiffs' theory, Section would replace Section as the heart and soul of the NHPA, requiring an agency to spend money on historic preservation regardless of whether it was engaged in or contemplating an undertaking.

    Nothing in the statute or the legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the nature of the NHPA in such a fashion when it amended it in , and the Court finds that Congress had no such intention.

    The guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior support this interpretation. The Guidelines further explain:.

    The Section Guidelines require the development by agencies of historic preservation plans and list a variety of factors that agencies "should consider" in establishing such plans and in managing historic properties.

    Nowhere, however, do they state that agencies have an affirmative obligation to spend money to preserve historic buildings. Rather, the entire thrust of the Guidelines is to channel agency decisionmaking in an informed preservationist direction consistent with the agency's mission.

    Lyng v. Reich, 11 F. Walter Reed's obligations under Section are further defined by the Army's own regulations. Army Regulation , promulgated in in compliance with the NHPA and various of the Secretary of the Interior's regulations and guidelines for historic preservation, provides in detail for the preparation of a Historic Preservation Plan "HPP" as the main mechanism by which the Army is to comply with the requirements and implementing regulations of Sections and of the NHPA.

    Army Regulation also provides guidelines for the programming, staffing, contracting, information management and disposal procedures pertaining to historic properties.

    It proposes a detailed protection plan outlining the procedures for maintaining the historic properties, including the procedures to be followed under Section For their part, defendants point to nearly three million dollars that have been spent on the Historic District since , nearly two million of which was spent since when the CRMP was promulgated.

    See note 8, supra. While it is true that the CRMP calls for two million dollars to be spent specifically on roof repair and maintenance, money that does not appear to have been allocated, the Army has explained that those funds, while originally available, were diverted to other Army projects and that Walter Reed continues to seek funding.

    The Court concludes that since Walter Reed has formally complied with Army Regulation by creating and adopting the CRMP, has spent substantial sums of money on repair, maintenance and preservation activities although obviously not enough to avoid significant deterioration and continues to make efforts to obtain additional funding to carry out its obligations under the CRMP, Walter Reed has complied with the Secretary's Guidelines and its own regulations.

    From until , however, Walter Reed was in compliance neither with Section nor with its own regulations. Until the CRMP was adopted in , the only planning document to make any reference to the historic needs of the District at all was the Master Plan of , A.

    See Def. Accordingly, on this record, the Court finds that Walter Reed violated Section and its own Army Regulation beginning in These violations lasted until when the considered decisionmaking process finally produced the CRMP.

    From , when Army Regulation formalized the Army's obligations under Section of the NHPA, until , the Army violated Section and its own regulations by neglecting the buildings in the Historic District without considering how to undertake, consistent with its mission, their preservation or alternative use.

    The Army also violated Section of the NHPA in by failing to initiate consultation procedures with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation when it decided not to excess the District, even though it was clear that the decision would cause further deterioration of the historic buildings.

    Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Army undertook the proper Section consultation procedures with respect to Major General Cameron's proposal to excess the District.

    The Army now represents to the Court that it is presently or is about to be engaged in further Section consultation procedures because it has decided not to excess the District after all.

    The Court concludes that no purpose would be served by ordering the Army to engage in Section consultation with respect to decisions made years ago.

    Similarly, Walter Reed's Cultural Resource Management Plan, while belated, rectifies the procedural and informational harm done by the Army's failure to prepare a Historic Preservation Plan between and Accordingly, the Court will not order the Army to undertake the consultations and assessments contemplated by Sections and of the NHPA and Army Regulation since the Army has represented to the Court that it is in the process of doing so.

    This leaves the very serious issue of the deterioration and damage that has resulted from the Army's neglect and failure to expend adequate resources on the preservation of the Historic District.

    Plaintiffs do not ask the Court, as in the typical NHPA case, to require the Army to halt a proposed undertaking such as the demolition or construction of a building, but rather to repair existing buildings to bring them back to a former level of integrity that pre-dates the Army's neglect.

    Plaintiffs argue that the Army's noncompliance with the NHPA and its own regulations caused significant harm to the buildings in the Historic District and that the Army is now obligated to make the District whole.

    Plaintiffs are clearly correct that the Army's noncompliance has caused real harm. The Court having concluded that Section was not intended to create new substantive preservationist obligations, it follows that the NHPA does not give the Court the authority to order the Army to turn back the hands of time, or even to spend more money to halt further deterioration while the Army completes its plans for the Historic District.

    This conclusion flows from the limited nature of Section itself. The NHPA requires the Army to undertake the level of preservation necessary to carry out Section , consistent with its mission.

    Section is to be read in conjunction with Section which constitutes the main thrust of the NHPA. The case law in this and other circuits holds that an agency's duty to act under the NHPA is triggered only when there is an undertaking and that that obligation, once triggered, is procedural in nature.

    Section itself does not require anything more, since the addition of Section to the statute was not intended to expand the preservationist responsibilities of federal agencies beyond what the NHPA already required.

    Moreover, the Section Guidelines demonstrate that the Secretary of the Interior has interpreted Section to embody the requirement that agencies thoroughly consider preservationist goals in all aspects of agency decisionmaking but that Section does not itself affirmatively mandate the preservation of historic buildings or other resources.

    The Court therefore concludes that Section , read in conjunction with Section , the statute as a whole and the case law, did not require Walter Reed to undertake any preservation beyond what was necessary to comply to the fullest extent possible with, and in the spirit of, the Section consultation process and with its own Historic Preservation Plan.

    While the Army could and, in a perfect world, should have done more to preserve the Historic District, the APA does not permit this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency with respect to resource allocations, so long as those allocations are not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion or contrary to law.

    Volpe, U. While the Court may disagree with the Army's decisions individual and cumulative to permit the buildings of the Historic District to deteriorate, the Court finds that the Army's expenditure of nearly two million dollars in repairs and maintenance since was not insignificant, consistent with Walter Reed's mission and mandate.

    The Army's course of conduct since therefore was permissible under the NHPA and the Court finds no basis in law on which to require the Army to invest any more funds in the District.

    It may seem ironic for the Court to find that Walter Reed violated the NHPA and its own regulations for over eight years and nevertheless to conclude that the Army cannot now be ordered to fix what it undoubtedly broke.

    Congress has decided as a legislative matter, however, to institutionalize the national commitment to historic preservation by creating certain planning, consultation and decisionmaking procedures to assure adequate consideration of preservationist concerns and not, as plaintiffs would have it, by requiring federal agencies to spend the taxpayers' money on historic preservation when it is not earmarked for such purposes.

    Merely because "it is impossible for us to know with any degree of certainty just what the end result of the NHPA process would be[, it would be] inappropriate to pre-judge those results Vieux Carre Property Owners v.

    Historic preservation by its very nature demands action to stem the otherwise inevitable wear and tear of time itself, and in obeying the NHPA's "command to consider," agencies necessarily will consider taking actions that they might not otherwise even have contemplated.

    While courts may not be authorized under the NHPA to order a recalcitrant agency to rebuild decaying historic treasures, it is their duty to declare what the agency's statutory obligations are and what the agency's procedural course should be.

    Don't Tear It Down, Inc. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. The merits having been decided in this fashion, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief necessarily also is denied.

    Judgment is entered for defendants; it is. Generate secure password. Already have an account? Log In. Welcome to Advanced Cash!

    Registration is free, fast, and simple. Please use real and up to date information. We never disclose any of your information to third parties.

    What type of account do you want?

    Mitarbeiter Tagschicht. Marco Denzer Tel. Alle Cookies akzeptieren. AbeBooks Verkäufer seit 6. Vertrieb und Service. Und wir Deutsches Online Casino Paypal, dass uns das auch gründlich gelungen ist.

    Plaintiffs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Save Our Seminary at Forest Glen, seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Army to expend substantial sums of money in long-term preservation activities that, plaintiffs argue, are not only necessary to preserve the National Park Seminary Historic District, a community of historic buildings located at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, but are statutorily mandated.

    The government asserts that it has in fact expended significant resources in order to preserve the Historic District consistent with the Department of the Army's spending priorities and mission, that it has complied with the requirements of the NHPA, and that the Act does not contemplate the kind of relief plaintiffs seek.

    Both sides moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, supplemented by affidavits, photographs and other evidence of deterioration, to force the Army to undertake emergency repairs and stabilization measures to the historic buildings in the Historic District in order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this litigation.

    In this case, the availability of preliminary injunctive relief turns on whether plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits entitling them to relief under the statute.

    The Maryland Historical Trust determined that twenty-four of those buildings contribute individually to the historic character of the Historic District while five other buildings do not.

    Walter Reed currently uses some of the 24 historic buildings for administrative purposes. The majority of the buildings, however, are not used at all.

    Interim Stabilization Plan Apr. Built in the s, Ye Forest Inne is the oldest building in the District. It was originally constructed as a resort and now serves as the Main Building Building of the National Park Seminary.

    See note 1, supra. In the late s and early s, eight eclectic sorority houses were built, each in a different architectural style, which also are among the 29 buildings in the Historic District.

    In addition, the District contains formal gardens, foot bridges, retaining walls, walkways, trails, garden ornaments and statuary.

    The parties agree that there has been significant damage to and deterioration of the buildings in the Historic District over the years, although they disagree about the extent of the damage and deterioration.

    At least the following facts are not in dispute. By , Building , the largest building in the complex, showed some rotten wood joints, mortar loss and deterioration.

    The foundation walls of Senior House were badly deteriorated. The Pergola Bridge was "in a deteriorating condition and might well be considered unsafe.

    Maintenance [on the Bridge] has been stopped. See also note 1, supra. The Army subsequently reported in that the south wall of the dining room of Building had partially collapsed and one of the columns in the west portico of the library wing had rotted and dropped eight to ten inches.

    Several buildings have been condemned The report described a wide variety of damage and concluded that "[w]hile the appropriate mitigation measure would be to develop a Historic Preservation Plan, as specified by Army Regulation , at this time funds are not available for WRAMC to undertake such an action.

    The Army does not dispute that its failure to expend more resources to maintain the District caused at least some of the significant damage. Since acquiring the Historic District in , the Army has made some efforts to account for and preserve the historic value of the buildings, primarily through the development of Master Plans and, in , a Cultural Resource Management Plan.

    A revised Master Plan retained the demolition proposal. In the ensuing years, however, Walter Reed apparently continued to consider declaring the property to be excess and selling it off in order to redirect maintenance funds toward its medical mission.

    See Letter from Colonel Gerald D. In , however, the Army abandoned the idea of excessing the property "as a result of the limited monetary return and expected time required years to excess the property.

    In , the Army completed another survey of historic buildings in the District in compliance with its own historic preservation regulation, Army Regulation The Survey noted that "[h]istoric preservation was not a consideration to the Army at this site" until Army Regulation became effective in It further stated that the Army's mission at Walter Reed and historic preservation were "in conflict," and that the underutilization of the old buildings on the site put "these facilities on a lower priority for maintenance funds when competition for funding direct medical facilities is severe.

    Cameron, again recommended that the Historic District be excessed. As part of his recommendation, Major General Cameron noted that "the current condition of the buildings to be excessed is deteriorating to the point that it is hazardous to life and property and cannot be repaired or maintained at our justifiable cost.

    On April 30, , the NCPC approved the proposed Master Plan, as modified, and specifically noted that certain concerns relating to historic preservation had been resolved.

    See also A. In October , the Army commissioned a Stabilization Report from Ward Bucher to identify emergency stabilization measures.

    Colonel Roy D. Quick June 4, , A. Declaration of Major General Ronald R. Blanck "Blanck Decl. Defendants now represent that Walter Reed has decided not to excess the District but rather will retain and reuse it and has or intends to initiate consultation procedures regarding repairs.

    Blanck Decl. They also claim that the Army failed to implement any of the October Bucher Report's recommendations, while defendants state that repairs were undertaken in response to the Bucher Report.

    Defendants acknowledge that the facilities in the Historic District are a lower priority for maintenance funds than the direct medical care facilities, such as the hospital, since the Historic District buildings for the most part have no function and are not being used.

    As a threshold matter, the parties dispute the proper standard of judicial review of the Army's actions under the NHPA.

    Defendants assert that judicial review is governed by the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.

    Such an implied right of action would permit private enforcement of the statute and potentially trump the deferential standard of review provided by the APA.

    The Third and Fifth Circuits and one district court in the Ninth Circuit have found such an implied private right of action in the NHPA, although none of these courts has concluded that a less deferential standard of review is appropriate.

    See Boarhead Corp. Erickson, F. Tricarico, F. Brown, F. The court of appeals for this Circuit has not addressed the issue, although one judge of this Court has rejected the argument that Section constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity.

    Indiana Coal Council v. Green, J. Nor has our court of appeals ever explicitly described the standard of review under NHPA as being governed by the APA, in part because the NHPA cases in this Circuit primarily have involved deciding whether the terms of the Act applied in certain instances at all, and not, as in this case, assessing whether an agency's actions are sufficient under the law.

    See Sheridan Kalorama Historical Assoc. Christopher, 49 F. National Capital Planning Comm'n, F. Thornburgh, F. Other courts have applied the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard of review to agency decisions under the NHPA without explicitly addressing the issue of whether a private right of action is created by Section See, e.

    ICC, F. District of Columbia, F. The most important inquiry is whether Congress specifically intended to create such a right.

    Curran, U. Watt, F. The existence of a statutory provision for attorneys' fees alone is not dispositive, although the First Circuit has acknowledged that it may, in some circumstances, be evidence of a congressional intent to create a private right of action.

    Cousins v. Dep't of Transportation, F. The Court is not persuaded that Congress intended to create a private right of action against the federal government under the NHPA.

    First, it is not clear that such a private right of action would provide any more relief than the APA itself does. The statute does not make damages available to private parties but speaks only in terms of agency responsibility for preservationist goals.

    Since waivers of sovereign immunity are not to be implied and are to be strictly construed, Lehman v. This is precisely the function of the APA.

    Second, neither the language nor the legislative history of the attorneys' fees provision of the NHPA clearly indicates an intent on the part of Congress to create a private right of action.

    Section of the NHPA provides:. The House Report states that "the intent [of Section ] is to ensure that property owners, non-profit organizations and interested individuals who may otherwise lack the means for court action be awarded reasonable costs for actions taken under this Act.

    Since the APA does not authorize attorneys' fees, it would have been perfectly consistent for Congress to provide for attorneys' fees under the NHPA while contemplating that challenges to agency action would be evaluated under the standards of the APA.

    See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Indeed, the NHPA explicitly instructs agencies to undertake preservationist activities that are "consistent with [their] mission.

    Assessing the nature of the Army's mission is, of course, particularly within the scope of that Department's expertise.

    Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, F. In that case, Circuit Judge now Justice Breyer, writing for the court, noted that "it is difficult to understand why a court would ever hold that Congress, in enacting a statute that creates federal obligations, has implicitly created a private right of action against the federal government, for there is hardly ever any need to do so" because of the omnipresent availability of APA review.

    In those few cases in which courts have inferred a private right of action against the federal government, "the courts have not even considered the role of the APA.

    Indeed, the very existence of the APA makes it reasonable to assume that "when Congress means to permit a private party to ask a court to review the legality of federal action in a manner that differs from APA review, Congress will say so explicitly in the statute.

    In this case, the Army's actions are fully reviewable under the APA. The Court concludes that Congress did not create or intend to create an independent private right of action against the federal government under Section of the NHPA.

    It provides:. The majority of NHPA cases that have reached the courts concern instances where a federal agency is alleged to have failed to comply with the consultation provisions of Section Although the language of the section is broad, it was not "intended to change the preservation responsibilities of Federal agencies as required by any other laws, executive orders or regulations Section provides in relevant part:.

    In this case, plaintiffs assert that the Army's actions in permitting the decay and deterioration of the Historic District violate the mandate of Section Plaintiffs would have the Court interpret Section a 1 as creating an independent substantive requirement that agencies engage in minimal preservationist activities so long as such activities are consistent with the agency's mission.

    Under such an interpretation, whether Walter Reed violated the NHPA by permitting the buildings of the Historic District to deteriorate would be a question separate and apart from whether it also violated the procedural provisions of the Act contained in Section and other subsections of Section Only one court has come close to ruling on this interpretive question.

    See North Oakland Voters Alliance v. Defendants reply that all of the requirements of the NHPA, including those in Section , are procedural, that the NHPA is designed to ensure that federal agencies merely take into account or consider the effect of their actions on historic places as part of the planning process for those properties, that there is no substantive requirement that agencies undertake particular preservationist activities at all, and that Congress intended the provisions of Sections and to have a limited reach.

    Defendants' underlying premise is that the statute does not mandate preservation but merely encourages it, citing this Circuit's opinion in Lee v.

    They also rely on Waterford Citizens' Assoc. Reilly, F. Each of these cases, however, focuses on the language of Section and does not address the effect, if any, of the seemingly more substantive language of Section Indeed, most courts discuss the obligations of Section and the Act as a whole as if they were interchangeable.

    The NHPA defines "undertaking," in relevant part, as "a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency" if carried out by a federal agency, with federal financial assistance or requiring a federal permit, license or approval.

    Different circuits describe the Section process as imposing more or less stringent or limited obligations upon agencies.

    Compare United States v. Nevertheless, Section is universally interpreted as requiring agencies to consult and consider and not to engage in any particular preservation activities per se.

    The issue here is when the Army became obligated to consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and whether it did so at that time.

    The Historic District was listed in the National Register in The Army decided not to excess the Historic District as early as and cemented that initial decision in despite having acquired additional information.

    Yet, no "Section Report" was prepared until , and that was done in connection with the preparation of a revised Master Plan in The question is whether any of these actions or lack of action violated the NHPA.

    The Army argues that until it affirmatively decided to excess the District in there was no "undertaking" on which to comment.

    Plaintiffs assert that the Army's failure to maintain the Historic District since at least , when the Army made its decision not to excess the District, constitutes "demolition by neglect" that warrants relief.

    Although the regulations consider neglect of a property that results in deterioration or destruction to be a cognizable "adverse effect" of an undertaking, not every instance of neglect or destruction can be said to flow from a cognizable undertaking.

    As a general matter, the APA defines "agency action" to include "failure to act," 5 U. NAACP v. An agency's failure to act, without more, is not an "undertaking" under Section ; indeed, if it were there would be a constant and ongoing requirement for ACHP comment and consultation.

    On the other hand, an undertaking includes any "activity Thus, the NHPA contemplates a certain level of agency vigilance even in the absence of a specific new project.

    For example, Section procedures must be "applied to ongoing Federal actions as long as a Federal agency has opportunity to exercise authority at any stage of an undertaking where alterations might be made to modify its impact on historic preservation goals.

    Pierce, F. Harris, F. Even the Army recognizes that such ongoing and routine activities as maintenance and repair may rise to the level of undertakings.

    Army Regulation , Glossary-3 May 15, , Pls. Accordingly, the analysis turns on the nature of the projects, activities and decisions that properly trigger Section review.

    While Section of the NHPA and NEPA are not identical, many courts fruitfully compare them, and their similarities shed light on the issue of agency action and inaction.

    See McMillan Park Committee v. In passing the NHPA, Congress inserted historic preservation concerns into all aspects of agency decision making by requiring agency heads to "take into account the effect of [any] undertaking" on historic buildings and structures, 16 U.

    Both statutes require the government to conduct certain procedural and informational activities before embarking on projects that might affect, respectively, historic sites or the environment.

    Neither NEPA nor Section mandates a particular outcome of governmental decisions; rather each defines the processes by which those decisions must be made.

    See Apache Survival Coalition v. United States, 21 F. The obligation to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA is triggered by the proposal of a "major federal action," 42 U.

    Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus, F. In Defenders of Wildlife, the court ruled that the Secretary of the Interior's inaction specifically, his failure to exercise his power to prevent the State of Alaska from killing wolves did not constitute a "federal action" requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

    In , the Army decided not to excess the Historic District because the costs were too high and the process would take too long.

    Sheridan Kalorama Historical Assoc. Indeed, the record is replete with evidence attesting to the consideration given over the years to the decision whether to excess the District, [13] and defendants acknowledge that an affirmative decision was made in not to do so.

    Yet there were no Section consultations with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Capital Planning Commission or the various Maryland state agencies about the overall disposition of the Historic District until The Court concludes that the decision not to excess the District was an undertaking under Section It therefore should have been made in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

    Plaintiffs contend that Walter Reed not only disregarded the Section consultation process but also violated the substantive mandate contained in Section to repair and maintain the buildings in the District.

    Agency obligations under Section , however, are far less defined than those under Section , and the parties vigorously disagree as to their scope and effect.

    The contested language of Section reads as follows: "Each agency shall undertake, consistent with the preservation of such [historic] properties and the mission of the agency and the professional standards established pursuant to section a g of this title, any preservation, as may be necessary to carry out this section.

    In addition, each agency "shall ensure" that properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places "are managed and maintained in a way that considers the preservation of their historic [and] architectural In this case, the District was listed in the National Register in and the Army's most significant decision was taken in when the Army decided not to excess the District but rather to retain control over it.

    That decision, and the ongoing policy thereafter to treat the historic preservation of the District's buildings as a low priority, gave rise to much of the deterioration now complained of by plaintiffs.

    Fancy a challenge? Try a puzzle! Conundrum puzzle: nmsihagci. Query: ne. Dictionary Check Does the word exist?

    Local Dictionary. Score: 2 points. There is 1 anagram for 'ne'. Words between 2 and 2 characters long and made with the letters from 'ne':. Check the full dictionary for words and anagrams using the letters e, n.

    Check for scrabble approved words and scores using the letters e, n. Two word anagram solutions made with the letters from 'ne':.

    Nettler Inne

    Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

    0 Kommentare

    Eine Antwort schreiben

    Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.