Wale That the statutes are designed to 5 a © 0G ' hype YOUR be ‘ Yu wihoow oases a i 2 “0 ' ‘ atial ty 2ts are not disputed. The only ne admittedly applicable statutes * oublic policies is concede The of their application is crucial. see 1 ay in applying NEPA. .. . the less @ to protect the city and its people: one of those comparatively rare cases .. the plaintiffs receive now whatever entitled to, there is danger that it le or no value to them or to anyone i i D Siew ie ue 3 d lf $e $ (wb 4 HH Ts rs uw ty a rou) get Sy ech we aw ale bw wD D Hp ootte 4y wip ood t 38 : vt toad wy o y (1a vt a‘ sivikingly similar to the situation here (pages 1116-17) ly obtained. H-2 issotiation v. Volve, 349 F.Supp. 1047, 1048 2) this District Court followed the Lathan . Volra. 5 2. sets forth the proper ry aagtermining whether a oreliminary ton snould issue ina HEPA action. .. stringent standard is required to ave “* 2 declared policy of Congress, D 4 AL a hy th fey In Brasicrd Tovnsnio v. - > 3939 (7th fir. . Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 1972), the Seventh Circuit stated: . Seiture to comply. croceaure 463 is casis . . [with the NEPA! for an ingunction. . . Judicial rslie® ts available to correct failure on wns cart of a federal agency 29 Tolley the vorocedural requirement under NEPA. at 539. in Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, supra, 468 F.2d 1184, the of Appeals said: I ri = eni gois ivrs Dons Tourt P2an oP 2 Lee z . a ° 2 5 niminar; £ 2 ak an ss in un . Ss 1? niunotion, as cinion, is tne congressional Sufficient from the above, can be al by appellants NEPA. Izaak Walton ger, 337 F.Sucs. cf Mew York v. we ae 7 aN ana ee Sincthn Tiroutt