The court declined to make a determination as to the historic value of the buildings. It found, however, that the continuing Federal involvement in the project, NEPA's policy in favor of historic preservation, and NEPA's requirement to consider alternatives required the agency to prepare an EIS, especially because particular portions of the project were planned for the future and there was still time and opportunity for the consideration of alternatives. Preservation and rehabilitation of the buildings were possible alternatives that had to be considered before the buildings could be razed. Because demolition would permanently foreclose such alternatives, the court granted plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief. 343 F. Supp. at 91.
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|