6. In October 1971, a grading and foundation contract was awarded and work on the project was then instituted.
7. Pursuant to Corps of Engineers instructions prepared in December, 1971, the District Engineer prepared an environmental assessment which was completed and submitted in June, 1972. In it the conclusion was reached that the environmental problems were minor or non-existent and that preparation of a 102(2)(C) statement was not required. This assessment fully covered drainage, traffic, paved surface run-off and other environmental matters. It also contains a section noting only minimal environmental effects of eight different categories including Land and Water Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality and Socio-Economic conditions. This same material was submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission and is repeated in an affidavit filed in this court by the District Engineer which contains the conclusion that the construction and operation of the project will have no significant effect on the human environment.
8. Prior to initiation of this suit on September 15, 1972 the grading and foundation contract had been completed at a cost of $1,700,000 and all foundations are in place. A steel contract was awarded in October, 1971, and approximately one-fourth of the steel work has been completed. The third or main building construction contract has also been awarded. The cost of a four month delay in continuing construction to the defendant would be approximately $413,000 and the cost of a six month delay would be $678,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The determination that the Bulk Mail Facility will not significantly affect the human environment and that preparation of a 102(2)(C) statement is not required was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.
2. Plaintiff has not established that it is likely to prevail on the merits.
3. Plaintiff has not established that it will suffer irreparable injury.
4. Plaintiff has not established a failure to comply with Executive Order No. 11514.
5. The motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.