(a) An EIS is required if the proposal is determined to have a significant impact on the human environment pursuant to subpart E.
(b) An EIS will normally be required if the proposal:
(1) Would provide a site or sites for hospitals or nursing homes containing a total of 2,500 or more beds; or
(2) Would remove, demolish, convert, or substantially rehabilitate 2,500 or more existing housing units (but not including rehabilitation projects categorically excluded under § 50.20), or which would result in the construction or installation of 2,500 or more housing units, or which would provide sites for 2,500 or more housing units.
(c) When the environmental concerns of one or more Federal authorities cited in § 50.4 will be affected by the proposal, the cumulative impact of all such effects should be assessed to determine whether an EIS is required. Where all of the affected authorities provide alternative procedures for resolution, those procedures should be used in lieu of an EIS.
Notes of Decisions
Coliseum Square Ass'n v. Jackson, 465 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2006).
“” 24 C.F.R. § 50.42 (b)(2). Plaintiffs argue that this regulatory provision must be read expansively and cumulatively: that is, that each demolition of an old housing unit and each construction of a new housing unit should be counted cumulatively toward the 2,500 limit or…”
Proj. B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 721 F. Supp. 1501 (D.R.I. 1989).
“” 24 C.F.R. 50.42(b)(3). HUD’s environmental assessment was defective, according to plaintiff, because HUD failed to: (1) incorporate the scattered-site plan in the EA; (2) begin the NEPA process until a few days before the demolition application was approved; (3) involve the…”
D'Agnillo v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 738 F. Supp. 1443 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
“” 24 CFR 50.42(b)(3). (b) The HCDA Claim: The Housing and Community Development Act (“HCDA” or the “Housing Act”) was enacted in 1974 to promote the development of “decent housing and a suitable living environment .”
— 24 C.F.R. § 50.42(b)(3) — 2 cases
Proj. B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 721 F. Supp. 1501 (D.R.I. 1989).
“” 24 C.F.R. 50.42(b)(3). HUD’s environmental assessment was defective, according to plaintiff, because HUD failed to: (1) incorporate the scattered-site plan in the EA; (2) begin the NEPA process until a few days before the demolition application was approved; (3) involve the…”
D'Agnillo v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 738 F. Supp. 1443 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
“” 24 CFR 50.42(b)(3). (b) The HCDA Claim: The Housing and Community Development Act (“HCDA” or the “Housing Act”) was enacted in 1974 to promote the development of “decent housing and a suitable living environment .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.