DOT had ascertained that the project would have no effect on historic resources in the District of Columbia but had not identified any District of Columbia historic properties. Instead, DOT chose to identify only properties in Virginia. Moreover, the agency had decided that even if there were historic properties in the District of Columbia which would be affected, the project would cause no adverse effect on those properties. DOT had furnished a copy of its environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act to the Council, however, and invited the Council's comments on the EIS.
The court concluded that although DOT had not adhered to the Council's regulations, this failure did not justify injunctive relief. 571 F.2d at 1313. DOT had complied with NHPA by providing the Council with an opportunity to comment on the EIS. Id. at 1313-14.
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|