The court granted a temporary restraining order, dissolved it, and then granted a second restraining order against the issuance of the building permit. On the merits, the court first held that neither NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Historic and Archeological Data Preservation Act, nor the regulations underlying these statutes create a private cause of action. 487 F. Supp. at 1052. Plaintiffs' right of action was limited to their ability to seek review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. at 1053.
The court held that without evidence submitted by the State clearinghouses that historic resources were present on the site, HUD had no obligation to perform any in-depth archeological studies based on the mere potential for resources noted in the boilerplate language. The fact that plaintiffs' survey differed from the one used by HUD to form its conclusions did not show that HUD acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Id. at 1054. The court dismissed the case.
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|