## Facts

- Charleston County, South Carolina sought to improve an existing dirt access road across federally regulated wetlands on the county-owned 750-acre Sheppard Tract.
- A 0.23-acre segment of the road crossed “waters of the United States,” requiring authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.
- The Corps authorized the project under Nationwide Permit 14 (road crossings).
- The improved road provided access from U.S. Highway 17 to “Area M,” a 33-acre field containing remains of an eighteenth-century plantation home site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
- Russ and Lee Pye owned adjoining land that contained part of an historic African-American cemetery, also eligible for the National Register.
- The Pyes alleged that improved access would increase looting, vandalism, and degradation of the plantation site and cemetery, citing prior disturbances and expected future harm.
- In issuing the nationwide permit authorization, the Corps did not consult the State Historic Preservation Officer or otherwise evaluate effects on nearby historic properties under NHPA-related procedures incorporated into Corps permitting practice.
- During litigation, the Corps suspended the authorization, re-evaluated the project with a narrow focus on the fill area, then reinstated the authorization; the county completed the road while the case was pending.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Corps and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing; the Pyes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether adjacent landowners alleging increased risk of looting and damage to nearby historic resources, and alleging failure to follow NHPA-related procedures, have Article III standing (injury in fact, traceability, and redressability) to sue under the APA.
2. Whether the Pyes’ preservation-related interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the NHPA and its implementing requirements as applied to the Corps’ permitting process.
3. Whether completed construction defeats redressability in a procedural-injury challenge to agency compliance with NHPA-related procedures.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for consideration of the merits.
- The court held the Pyes alleged a concrete, particularized injury as adjacent landowners based on increased risk of looting, vandalism, and degradation of historic sites tied to improved access.
- The court held the asserted injuries were fairly traceable to the Corps’ authorization of the road crossing.
- The court held redressability was satisfied under the more permissive showing applicable to procedural-injury claims; agency compliance could affect decisionmaking and available mitigation even if the ultimate project outcome was uncertain.
- The court held the Pyes’ interests in preserving nearby historic properties were within the zone of interests protected by the NHPA for purposes of APA review.
- The court rejected the argument that completion of construction eliminated redressability, noting that remedial or mitigating measures remained possible.

## Legal Principles

- Adjacent landowners may establish injury in fact where government authorization foreseeably increases risks of physical harm (including vandalism and looting) to nearby historic resources that the owners use, value, or have on their property.
- In APA suits alleging violation of preservation-related procedures, plaintiffs asserting a procedural injury need not show that a different substantive outcome is likely; it is enough that compliance could influence agency decisionmaking or mitigation.
- For prudential standing under the APA, aesthetic, cultural, historical, and educational interests in historic properties can fall within the NHPA’s zone of interests, particularly where plaintiffs are neighbors or users of affected sites.
- Completed project work does not necessarily defeat redressability in procedural-compliance challenges when courts can still order agency compliance and effective remedies may remain available.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that adjacent landowners had standing under the APA to challenge the Corps’ nationwide permit authorization based on alleged NHPA procedural noncompliance, vacated the dismissal for lack of standing, and remanded for merits review.


Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2001)