Source: http://citizensvision.org/savehuletts/legal/complaint.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:21:28+00:00

Document:
1. The plaintiffs bring this action to remedy past and continuing violations of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 470 et seq. and corresponding regulations. Defendants have authorized the demolition of, have in fact demolished and will continue to demolish Historic Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In so doing, defendants violated four provisions of the Act: 1) The prohibition on issuing permits without considering the potential effects on properties listed on the National Register; 2) The prohibition on issuing permits without allowing the federal Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office and the public a reasonable opportunity to comment; 3) Segmentation of an undertaking into component parts; and 4) The prohibition on anticipatory demolition.
2. In 1998 defendant Port Authority adopted a Master Plan, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4582.07. The Plan describes future improvements and expansions to the property at 5400 Whiskey Island, known as Cleveland Bulk Terminal ("CBT") on Whiskey Island, west of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River and east of the Westerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Standing tall at CBT are four intact Hulett ore unloaders, machine shop, repair shop, other buildings, along with the ruins of the recently demolished Power House (collectively "Historic Properties"), which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and were designated as Cleveland Landmarks by the Cleveland City Council in 1993. The Port's Master Plan calls for expanding bulk cargo handling capabilities at the CBT, and later a more detailed study and mitigation plan on the expansion section of the Master Plan, specifies that such expansion would require demolition and/or removal of the Historic Properties. Full implementation of the expansion plans requires dredging along the face of the CBT dock, directly in front of where the Historic Properties to be demolished and/or removed are located.
3. At the time the Port adopted the Master Plan, it possessed a permit for maintenance dredging for the Port properties only east of the Cuyahoga River, but not for the area at the CBT in front of the Historic Properties. The Port and Oglebay, through their agent Greiner, presented a plan for demolition of the Historic Properties at the public meeting of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Cleveland. There they assured the public that since there was no federal involvement in the Mitigation Plan, such as the need for a dredging permit, no section 106 review would be applicable. Then, one week later the Port asked the Army Corps for permission to dredge in front of the Historic Properties-not by asking for a new permit, but by attempting to get the dredging added to an existing, unrelated maintenance dredging permit. The Port asked defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to add the new CBT dredging area under that existing permit. The added area was to extend along the face of the CBT dock for 2,000 feet - the exact length required in the Port's expansion plans to simultaneously accommodate two 1,000-foot ships. The Army Corps told the Port that a new permit was required. Yet the Port still insisted that this additional dredging, although matching precisely the dock length requirement in the Port's expansion plans, had nothing to do with those expansion plans.
4. When plaintiff Ray Saikus discovered this new plan for dredging at the CBT, he requested/demanded of the Army Corps that no permit be issued without first conducting a review under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and corresponding regulations. (Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on historic properties.) Later, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Ohio State Historic Preservation Office also advised the Army Corps that a 106 review was required.
5. In another transparent attempt to evade compliance with the NHPA and corresponding regulations, defendants took two illegal acts. First, they scaled back the length of the dredging area from 2,000 feet to a 600-foot segment of the 2,000-foot area, directly in front of the Historic Properties. This attempt to evade a 106 review through incrementally implementing the expansion plans is called segmentation and is illegal. Second, the Army Corps issued a dredging permit to the Port, thereby facilitating the Port's plan to demolish the Historic Properties with no intent by the Army Corps to complete their 106 review obligation. This is called anticipatory demolition and is illegal under section 110(k) of the Act.
6. Despite strong objections by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office and the public, and despite lack of a 106 review, defendant Port, with the cooperation of the Army Corps, completed the dredging of the 600-foot segment. Defendant Army Corps, through it's granting the permit and executing the dredging, facilitated the demolition of the Historic Buildings and the eminent demolition/disassembly of the Historic Hulett Ore Unloaders themselves. To accomplish this demolition, defendants Port and Oglebay Norton have entered into contracts with defendant Signature Services, Inc. The City of Cleveland has issued demolition permit[s].
7. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, 28 U.S.C. §1361, 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 16 U.S.C. § 470w-4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C. § 703.
14.	In addition, all the plaintiffs use, enjoy, and derive benefit from the historic, engineering, industrial, transportation, and cultural resources that the site, Huletts, buildings and artifacts embody. The plaintiffs' use, enjoyment and aesthetic appreciation of the Huletts, buildings and artifacts will be threatened and adversely affected by the defendants' actions complained of herein.
15. Defendant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps") is a federal agency that issues dredging permits.
16. Defendant Lt. General Joe N. Ballard is Chief Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is sued in that official capacity.
17. Defendant Col. Mark D. Feirstein is District Engineer for the Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is sued in that official capacity.
18. Defendants Ballard and Feirstein are responsible for the administration, environmental review, authorization, and issuance or denial of permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. §403, and section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344. Defendants Ballard and Feirstein are also responsible for ensuring that, in the permitting process, the Army Corps complies with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f, and the regulations implementing section 106, 36 CFR Part 800.
19. Defendant Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority ("Port") owns that portion of Whiskey Island known as Cleveland Bulk Terminal (formerly the C&P Ore Dock), where the Historic Properties (Huletts, buildings and artifacts) are located. The Port is a joint public agency of Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland and operates pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4582. The Port applied for and received a dredging permit and dredging services from the Army Corps. The Port leases the CBT to defendant Oglebay Norton Company.
20. Defendant Oglebay Norton Company ("Oglebay") is a publicly held corporation in the business of bulk materials handling. Oglebay leases the CBT from the Port and is an ultimate beneficiary of the Port's plan to demolish the Historic Properties. With the Port, Oglebay hired a contractor to study the economics of expanding the capacity of the CBT. As of this filing one of the Historic Properties - the Power House - has recently been demolished by Oglebay, the Port or their agents/contractors.
21. Defendant Signature Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Signature Services") is a contractor who received from the City of Cleveland a permit to demolish the historic buildings at the CBT. Also, the Port selected Signature Services to demolish and/or disassemble and remove the Hulett Ore Unloaders.
22. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against defendants in order to remedy an ongoing violation of federal law.
23. The Hulett Ore Unloader was invented by Clevelander George H. Hulett in 1898 and the first Hulett Ore Unloader went into service in 1899. The Huletts, buildings and artifacts at the CBT were built in 1911 by the Cleveland company Wellman-Seaver-Morgan and went into service in 1912. The Hulett Ore Unloaders revolutionized the handling of iron ore (and later other bulk materials) at ports throughout the Great Lakes and made the City of Cleveland the largest iron ore terminus in the world. The resulting effects on American steel production dramatically changed the country's social, cultural, and economic life. At the height of the Hulett Ore Unloaders' utility, they could be found at virtually every port on Lake Erie as well as many other ports on the Great Lakes. Today, of the 75 originally built, the four Hulett Ore Unloaders at the CBT (which operated until 1992) are the oldest and among the last six to survive in the world.
24. On or about November 20, 1979, CONRAIL (which then owned the CBT) requested a dredging permit from the Army Corps. The Corps issued a permit [EXHIBIT 3] on April 14, 1980. The permit encompassed an area 25 feet wide by 1,800 feet long in front of the CBT dock face and expired in 1990.
26. The Port acquired the CBT from CONRAIL on or about March 19, 1997. At about that time, the Port entered into a 10-year lease of the CBT to Oglebay. The lease permits Oglebay to operate the docks for the Port. By the terms of the lease, the Port retains control and responsibility for the Hulett Ore Unloaders. [EXHIBIT 5] Also as part of the lease the Port and Oglebay have other responsibilities in regards to the fate of the Historic Properties at the CBT.
31. On or about November 6, 1998, the Port issued a news release and sent a copy to plaintiff Ray Saikus. This release contained a Fact Sheet on the Cleveland Bulk Terminal Historic Preservation Mitigation Plan [EXHIBIT 13] that states: (1) "Consequently the Port Authority and Oglebay Norton plan to improve Cleveland Bulk terminal to meet marketplace demand by increasing the storage, accessibility [i.e., dredging] and throughput capacity of the terminal's docks" and (2) "Making these improvements will necessitate the removal of the four Hulett ore unloaders to allow additional self-unloading ships to dock at the facility and to increase storage capacity on the dockface" (emphasis added).
32. On or about November 10, 1998, the Port applied to the Landmarks Commission for a certificate of appropriateness (i.e., permission) [EXHIBIT 8] to demolish the Historic Properties.
33. On or about November 25, 1998, the Port and Oglebay, through their agent, Greiner, sent out notices and invitations to the public to participate as "an interested party to the Section 106 process for this project." One such invitation [EXHIBIT 14] was received by plaintiff Ray Saikus. This invitation was misleading in that the section 106 Review was to be conducted by an unauthorized non-federal agency.
34. On or about December 10, 1998, the Landmarks Commission voted to deny the certificate of appropriateness and instead granted a six-month negotiation period to develop alternatives to demolition. A subcommittee of the Landmarks Commission was organized to conduct hearings and help the parties develop alternatives to demolition.
35. On or about February 25, 1999, Greiner representative Terry Klein presented to the Hulett Sub-Committee a report claiming that the Port had consulted with ACHP and OSHPO regarding applicability of section 106 to the CBT improvement project. The report continued, "The Buffalo District of the Army Corps has preliminarily informed the Port Authority that it has no jurisdiction over the proposed improvements to the CBT, as no permit is required and it does not involve modifications to the waters of the United States. Both the staff of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office [OSHPO] and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have indicated to the Port Authority that without a federal agency's involvement, such as the Corps, Section 106 would not apply to the project..." [EXHIBIT 15].
36. Just one week later, on or about March 4, 1999, without notifying the Landmarks Commission, OSHPO or ACHP, the Port initiated a permit request for dredging along the face of the CBT dock. To avoid scrutiny, their letter to the Army Corps requested expansion of the scope of an existing maintenance dredging permit - one that permitted dredging only at Port facilities east of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River [EXHIBIT16]. The additional dredging area requested was to be at the CBT dock face next to and in front of the Historic Properties, west of the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. The area to be dredged was to be 50 feet wide by 2,000 feet long - the exact length of two 1,000-foot ships as described in the Study on page 14 [EXHIBIT 11], and 200 feet more than the expired 1980 dredging permit, which specified 1,800 feet along the dock.
37. On or about March 12, 1999, the Port requested of the Army Corps [EXHIBIT 10] a determination of section 106 applicability. However, the Port did not provide the Corps a copy of the Cleveland Bulk Terminal Historic Preservation Mitigation Plan [EXHIBIT 12], which was the first clear statement by the Port of its intent to demolish/remove the Historic Properties, in order to allow for simultaneous docking by two 1,000-foot ships end-to-end at CBT, and the need for dredging permits. The Port's March 12, 1999, letter states: "The proposed CBT improvement project is included within the Master Plan. Further, some of the future actions included within this Master Plan will require permits from the USACE." This statement shows that the Port considered the CBT expansion plan and demolition of the Historic Properties to be an amendment to and thus part of the Port's Master Plan of July 1998.
38. On or about March 29, 1999 the Port applied for a "maintenance" dredging permit, covering an area 2,000 feet by 60 feet at the CBT dockface [EXHIBIT 17]. The Army Corps assigned the request processing number D/A 1999-01471.
39. The April 1999 issue of Northern Ohio Live carried an advertisement by Oglebay, showing that CBT offers a "deep-water dock" with a "2,000-foot frontage." [EXHIBIT 18] This ad matches the March 29 request for a 2,000-foot permit.
41. On or about May 6, 1999, Mr. Saikus sent a letter to Steven Metivier of the Army Corps [EXHIBIT 20]. The letter repeated the substance of their recent telephone conversation and affirmed the Committee's and his position that any modification of the March 29 dredging permit application, which called for an area of 2,000 feet by 60 feet would be a "clear facilitation of [illegal] segmentation of the project" on the part of the Army Corps.
42. On or about May 11, 1999, in response to concerns stated by Mr. Saikus and other parties, OSHPO sent a letter [EXHIBIT 21] to Steven Metivier of the Army Corps, stating: "Therefore, it appears that the improvement project, including the dredging, is an undertaking subject to the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act and that it will have an adverse effect on the Pennsylvania Railway [C&P] Ore Dock."
44. On or about May 13, 1999, defendant Army Corps issued a letter [EXHIBIT 24] that referred to revised maintenance dredging proposal D/A processing number 1999-01471 as one that "includes an approximately 25 foot wide area in front of the CBT bulkhead beginning approximately 250 feet from the west end of the CBT dock and extending east along the dock face for a distance of 600 feet." The Corps retained the same D/A 1999-01471 number as was assigned to the March 29 request for a 2,000 foot permit, indicating that the Corps considered the requests to be one and the same, thereby evading the 106 review that would be necessary for a new permit application.
46. On or about May 14, 1999, Mr. Saikus contacted the Army Corps via fax [EXHIBIT 25] and demanded that no permit be issued. He demanded/requested that ACHP and OSHPO be allowed to comment on the Corps' May 13 finding that the dredging would have "no effect" on the Historic Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
47. On or about May 14, 1999, the Defendant Army Corps issued to the Port the modified version of the requested dredging permit [EXHIBIT 26] covering a 600 foot x 25 foot segment of the original March 29, 1999 request for a 2,000 foot x 60 foot area.
48. On or about May 20, 1999, Gary Failor, the Port's Executive Director, sent a letter [EXHIBIT 27] to Steven Metivier of the Army Corps with the intent to persuade the Corps that no section 106 review would be necessary. In so doing, the Port exposed its agenda of anticipatory demolition and segmenting the Port's Master Plan into component parts, those being dredging at the CBT dock, the CBT improvement project, and destruction of the Historic Properties. The Port's same letter claims that any "...Neither of these possible connections between the dredging, the Port Master Plan, and the removal of the Huletts exists. ...the removal of the Huletts or other proposed changes to the site would occur regardless of, and in no way connected to, any elements contained in the Port Master Plan. In light of these incontrovertible facts, the removal of the Huletts and buildings on the site does not require a Section 106 review nor any action by the Corps of Engineers..." (Emphasis added). For its part, the Army Corps negligently failed to compare the Port's May 20, 1999 argument with the Port's previous letter of March 12, 1999 which presented the contradicting argument: "The proposed CBT [improvement] project will require the removal of the four Huletts and the buildings and structures associated with the Huletts." "The proposed CBT improvement project is included within the Master Plan." [EXHIBIT 10] The Army Corps segmented the projects and facilitated anticipatory demolition without exercising due diligence by 1) embracing both contradictory arguments 2) negligently failing to revoke the dredging permit and 3) negligently failing to initiate a section 106 review, given applicant Port's blatant and obvious attempts to confuse, deceive, and avoid public scrutiny.
49. On or about May 24, 1999, plaintiff Ray Saikus demanded in a letter to the Army Corps [EXHIBIT 28] that the Corps revoke the modified version of the dredging permit and allow all interested parties, including ACHP and OSHPO, to comment.
52. On or about June 2, 1999, both the ACHP [EXHIBIT 30] and the OSHPO [EXHIBIT 31] informed the Army Corps by letter that its determination of "no effect" was erroneous and that review pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA was required. 36 C.F.R. §800.5(d)(2). The ACHP requested suspension of the dredging permit until such compliance had occurred.
53. On Saturday, June 5, 1999, starting at approximately 5:00 p.m. and continuing past 10:00 p.m. a dredging barge, tug boats and other equipment dredged at the CBT in front of the Historic Properties. Plaintiff Ed Hauser videotaped the dredging.
54. On or about June 21, 1999, Paul G. Leuchner of Army Corps sent a letter [EXHIBIT 32] to Don L. Klima of ACHP, erroneously stating that the dredging was completed on June 9, 1999, when in fact it was completed in the morning of June 6, 1999.
56. On or about September 21, 1999 and thereafter, the Port and Oglebay argued in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas cases 391885 and 391886, filed by plaintiff Ed Hauser, that the CBT expansion plan and demolition of the Historic Properties were part of the Port's Master Plan. [EXHIBIT 9] The March 12, 1999 letter [EXHIBIT 10] from the Port to the Army Corps shows that the Port considered the CBT expansion plan and demolition of the Historic Properties as incorporated into the Port Master Plan. Yet on or about May 13, 1999, in a letter [EXHIBIT 24] to the Port, Steven Metivier quoted a conversation that the Port stated to the Army Corps that the CBT expansion was a stand alone project, and on or about May 20, in a letter [EXHIBITS 27] the Port argued that connections between the Master Plan, demolition of Historic Properties and dredging did not exist.
57. On or about September 28, 1999 the ACHP issued a letter [EXHIBIT 34] to the Corps concluding that "...the dredging activity permitted by the District in May 1999 violated Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as the Corp's historic preservation regulations , 33CFR Part 325, Appendix C."
60. On or about November 12, 1999, the Port's Board of Directors passed Resolution 1999-65 [EXHIBIT 36] authorizing the Port to enter into a contract with Signature Services, Inc. for "disassembly and removal of the Hulett Ore Unloaders at the Cleveland Bulk Terminals."
61. Quantity of bulk and iron ore received at the CBT has decreased each year since Oglebay leased the CBT. The 1997 season total was 1.6 million tons; 1998 season total was 1.3 million tons. The 1999 season to date (from the beginning of the shipping season in April through the end of October) has been 0.61 million tons. [EXHIBIT 37] On or about April 1999, in an advertisement that ran in the April issue of Northern Ohio Live magazine, [EXHIBIT 18] Oglebay offered the CBT facility to prospective customers as a "Complete 5,000,000-ton Bulk Materials Storage and Transfer Facility" having a "Deep-water Dock" (i.e., the CBT dock face) and "2000-foot [dock] Frontage." The photograph of the CBT dock in Oglebay's ad distinctly shows the presence of the Historic Properties: four Huletts and their accessory buildings. This ad is an obvious indication that the presence of the Historic Properties would not detract from the utility of the dock in the immediate future. Therefore the presence of the Historic Properties does not impinge on the bulk cargo storage or throughput of the CBT. Thus the damage to the public and plaintiffs through the destruction of the Historic Properties far outweighs any speculative loss of revenue in this declining business environment.
62. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully restated.
63. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., includes congressional findings that the nation's historic heritage should be preserved; that the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest; that the encouragement of preserving our historic resources will improve the planning and execution of federal and federally assisted projects and will assist economic growth and development; and that it is necessary and appropriate for the federal government to accelerate its preservation programs and activities. Id. 16 USC § 470(b). The NHPA further provides that it shall be the policy of the federal government in partnership with the states, local governments, and private organizations to provide leadership in the preservation of the historic resources of the United States and to contribute to the preservation of non-federally owned historic resources. Id. 16 USC § 470-1.
65. The Army Corps' issuance of a dredging permit is an "undertaking" subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.
The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, ...prior to the issuance of any license..., take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation...a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. (Emphasis added).
68. Defendants failed to take into account the potential effects of the undertaking on the Huletts, buildings and artifacts in violation of Section 106 of the NHPA.
69. Defendants failed to afford the ACHP and OSHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on the effects of the undertaking before issuing a permit in violation of Section 106 of the NHPA.
70. Defendants' failure to comply with section 106 prior to issuance of the permit in May 1999 was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the record, and otherwise not in accordance with the law. Accordingly, defendants should be enjoined from proceeding with any further activities that would adversely affect the Historic Properties. The historic Power House having been demolished as of this filing, the defendants should be enjoined from granting any further permits, doing any further dredging, receiving federal or federally-originated funding and/or services for any roadway work, new building construction, dock modifications, demolition and/or removal of any building, structure, artifacts and the four Hulett Ore Unloaders. Unless Defendants are so enjoined, Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed in their use, appreciation, and enjoyment of the Historic Properties. The public interest in avoiding irreversible damage to the Huletts, buildings and artifacts outweighs the risk to the Defendants occasioned by a delay in their demolition and/or removal.
71. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law for the above-mentioned conduct of the defendants, and this action for injunctive and declaratory relief is the plaintiff's only means for securing relief. Accordingly, the Court must enjoin the defendants from any and all activities that might adversely affect the Historic Properties until such time as the defendants fully comply with the NHPA.
72. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 71 as if fully restated.
73. Defendants Port and Oglebay seek to demolish the Historic Properties in order to create more open space at the CBT dock.
74. In order to evade complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, defendants have engaged in the illegal segmentation of the undertakings related to the ultimate demolition of the Historic Properties. This segmentation has occurred simultaneously with the Port's and Oglebay's commencement of demolition plans for the Historic Properties.
75. Defendants Port and/or Oglebay have submitted multiple revised applications to the Army Corps to escape the requirement of review under Section 106 of the NHPA, in order to evade and preclude the possibility of taking into account the potential effects of the project on the Historic Properties (the Huletts, buildings and artifacts) and with the facilitation of the Army Corps, preclude the possibility of affording the ACHP and OSHPO an opportunity to comment, as required by Section 106, and to avoid the full implication of penalties to the rest of the projects within the Port Master Plan.
Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having the legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
77. The Army Corps knowingly allowed the non-federal defendants to begin the anticipatory demolition. The demolition of the Historic Properties would not occur but for the segmentation and illegally authorized dredging pursuant to the illegal permit issued in May 1999. The demolition of the Huletts, buildings, and artifacts is integrally related to and directly associated with the illegally authorized dredging, which is essential to completion of the overall Port expansion project, as outlined in the Port Master Plan. Therefore the Huletts, buildings, and ancillary apparatus have been and will be directly affected as a result of the illegally authorized dredging, and should be included within the permit area for the dredging permit [33C.F.R., Part 325, Appendix C, paragraph 1.g.]. In addition, the demolition of the Historic Properties (Huletts, buildings and artifacts) is a foreseeable potential adverse effect of the dredging permit.
78. The federal defendants have violated Section 106 by issuing a permit for dredging and also completing the dredging, without taking into account the potential effects on the Historic Properties and without affording the ACHP, OSHPO or the public the opportunity to comment.
79. Defendants' failure to comply with Section 106 prior to issuance of the dredging permit in May 1999 and also completing the dredging in June of 1999, was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by the record, and otherwise not in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the Court must enjoin defendants from proceeding with any further activities that might adversely affect the Huletts, buildings, and artifacts. Demolition having been initiated and completed to the historic Power House as of this filing, the Defendants should be enjoined from granting any further permits, doing any further dredging, receiving federal or federally-originated funding and/or services for any roadway work, new building construction and dock modifications throughout the project areas of the Port Master Plan, and demolition and/or removal of any building, structure, artifacts and the four (4) Hulett Ore Unloaders. Unless Defendants are so enjoined, Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed in their use, appreciation, and enjoyment of the Historic Properties (Huletts, buildings, and artifacts). The public interest in avoiding irreversible damage to the Huletts, buildings and artifacts outweighs the risk to the Defendants occasioned by a delay in their demolition and/or removal.
80. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law for the above-mentioned conduct of the defendants, and this action for injunctive and declaratory relief is the plaintiffs' only means for securing relief. Accordingly, the Court must enjoin the defendants from any and all activities that might adversely affect the Historic Properties until such time as the defendants fully comply with the NHPA.
1. Declare the obligations and duties of the defendants to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and corresponding regulations and enjoin defendants from conducting any further demolition activities whatsoever.
2. Adjudge and declare that the non-federal defendants have acted unlawfully in violation of the NHPA 110(k) and corresponding regulations by facilitating and proceeding with segmentation and anticipatory demolition leading to the destruction of the Historic Properties (Hulett Ore Unloaders, buildings, and artifacts) before complying with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, in order to evade, and/or prevent compliance with those laws and regulations.
3. Adjudge and declare that the federal Defendants have acted unlawfully in violation of the NHPA and corresponding regulations by issuing an illegal dredging permit and illegally performing the dredging, facilitating segmentation and anticipatory demolition without taking into account the potential effects on the Historic Properties and without affording the ACHP, OSHPO and the public a reasonable opportunity to comment.
4. Adjudge and declare that the CBT improvement plan is constructively an extension to, and therefore part of, the Master Plan as argued by the Port and Oglebay.
5. Adjudge and declare that the Historic Properties were damaged and/or destroyed in violation of the NHPA and corresponding regulations.
6. Revoke and terminate all current federal services, funding, and permits granted to non-federal defendants throughout the project areas of the Port Master Plan.
7. Prohibit non-federal defendants from ever receiving, and all federal agencies and providers of federal services, funding, and permits from providing, future federal services to non-federal defendants throughout the project areas of the Port Master Plan.
8. Issue a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction pursuant to F.R.C.P. 65 directing defendants to refrain from any action that might adversely affect the Historic Properties.
9. Order injunctive relief directing the federal defendants to do everything feasible within the scope of their legal authority to discourage and prevent the demolition initiated and conducted by the non-federal defendants.
10. Adjudge and declare all defendants financially responsible for restoration of damaged Historic Properties. Order defendants with responsibility for demolition to post a surety bond for the cost to restore demolished or partially demolished structures to their pre-demolition condition, and replace destroyed Historic Property.
11. Award Plaintiffs their attorney fees, costs, and disbursements, pursuant to Section 305 of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. § 470w-4.
12. Award such other and further relief, as the Court may deem appropriate.

References: § 4582
 § 1331
 §1361
 § 702
 § 470
 § 1391
 § 703
 §403
 §1344
 §800
 § 470
 § 470
 § 470
 § 470