HUD had complied with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and had prepared a special environmental clearance in which it concluded that no environmental impact statement (EIS) was necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiff claimed that HUD's actions would displace the local artists and thus irreparably damage the cultural character of the area, thereby necessitating an EIS.
The court disagreed, holding that when effects on the physical environment are evident, it is appropriate for the agency to consider cultural factors in its environmental review. However, a cultural threat, standing by itself, does not require preparation of an EIS. 679 F.2d at 185.
Second, the court noted that HUD worked in concert with local officials, acted consistently with local land use policies, and complied with NHPA. The court found these factors to support the validity of HUD's compliance with NEPA. Id. at 186.
|Go to Table of Contents||Go to Top|