The court held that Section 106 did not apply because that part of the project affecting the Haish Building was approved in 1972, prior to the determination of the building's eligibility for the Register. Slip op. at 2. However, the court found that the Council's regulations are not keyed to the decision to approve funding, but are to apply at any time when it is still possible to effect changes in the undertaking to circumvent an adverse impact.
Because HUD had given final approval and funding for the acquisition of the building, demolition had already occurred, and the land had been reused, HUD could do nothing to change the local agencies' plans. That HUD may approve and fund successive years of the same urban renewal program on an ongoing basis does not place HUD in a position to exert such influence. Requiring compliance with the Council's regulations would be inappropriate and nonproductive. Id. at 3.
In considering plaintiffs' National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) claims that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was required for the third action year of the project, the court concluded that an EIS is not automatically required under NEPA just because there may be an impact on property eligible for the National Register. Id. at 4.
In this case, because all of HUD's approvals concerning the building were completed before the building was determined eligible, there was no further major Federal action to be taken regarding the building that would require an EIS. Id. at 6.
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|