## Facts

- The National Park Seminary Historic District, located at the Forest Glen annex of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Plaintiffs (a national preservation organization and a local preservation group) alleged that multiple historic buildings were vacant and deteriorating due to leaks, structural problems, and vandalism.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting emergency stabilization and a long-term preservation program.
- The Army acknowledged the site’s historic significance but asserted that preservation must be balanced against its mission and limited resources and that it had undertaken studies, consultation, and some preservation measures.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; plaintiffs also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring immediate repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether NHPA § 110 creates a substantive, judicially enforceable duty requiring the Army to spend specific sums or perform particular preservation work on historic properties under its control.
2. Whether the Army complied with NHPA § 106’s procedural requirements and § 110’s agency-level preservation responsibilities in managing the Historic District.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctive relief compelling emergency stabilization.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctive relief.
- The court held that NHPA § 106 is procedural and does not mandate a particular preservation outcome.
- The court held that NHPA § 110 establishes broad, programmatic preservation responsibilities but does not supply judicially manageable standards authorizing courts to order specific expenditures or construction/repair measures.
- The court concluded the Army’s actions satisfied NHPA obligations because it recognized the site’s historic status and considered preservation within planning and resource constraints.
- Applying the preliminary-injunction factors, the court found no likelihood of success on the merits and declined to order emergency stabilization notwithstanding asserted irreparable harm.

## Legal Principles

- NHPA § 106 requires an agency to consider effects on historic properties and provide an opportunity for comment through consultation, but it does not compel a particular substantive result.
- NHPA § 110 articulates a general federal preservation policy and agency program responsibilities; without specific standards, it does not authorize judicial orders directing agency budgeting decisions or mandating particular preservation projects.
- Courts are reluctant to issue injunctions that effectively manage an agency’s allocation of scarce resources where the governing statute leaves substantial discretion to the agency and political branches.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires more than a showing of threatened harm; absent a viable merits claim supporting the requested remedy, injunctive relief is not warranted.

## Conclusion

The court refused to treat the NHPA as a vehicle for court-ordered restoration of deteriorating federally controlled historic buildings, holding that §§ 106 and 110 required consideration and programmatic planning rather than enforceable mandates to fund and implement specific preservation measures, and it therefore entered judgment for the Army and denied injunctive relief.


Nat’l Tr. for Historic Pres. v. Blanck, 938 F. Supp. 908 (D.D.C. 1996)