Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Inc. v. Watson

No. J81-12 Civil (D. Alaska September 7, 1982)

The court clarifies its April 1, 1982 injunction, 12 ELR 20658, requiring the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) concerning amendments to the plan for mining within the Misty Fjords National Monument in Alaska, and rejects intervenor-defendants U.S. Borax's motion to declare the injunction expired. A July 1982 final EIS for road building and bulk sampling is not sufficient to comply with its previous order, and in fact, the record shows that the Forest Service is preparing the required EIS. However, the court grants U.S. Borax's motion to clarify that the injunction does not bar quarry operations for the purpose of obtaining fill for an access road.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Durwood J. Zaelke
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
419 6th St., Suite 321, Juneau AK 99801
(907) 586-2751

Counsel for Defendants
Michael Spaan, U.S. Attorney
Box 9, Rm. C-252, 701 C St., Anchorage AK 99513
(907) 271-5071

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendants
Michael T. Thomas
Robertson, Monagle, Eastaugh & Bradley
P.O. Box 679, Anchorage AK 99510
(907) 277-6693

[13 ELR 20199]

von der Heydt, J.:

Memorandum and Order

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on intervenor-defendants' (U.S. Borax) motion for order declaring injunction expired and motion for order clarifying injunction.

I. Expiration of Injunction

The injunction at issue became effective on April 1, 1982. It required the United States Forest Service to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, addressing 1980-83 amendments to the U.S. Borax 1980-83 Plan of Operations. Such an EIS has still not been completed. The court notes that the July 1982 final EIS for road access and bulk sampling does not satisfy the injunction at issue. Furthermore, it is evident from the record that the Forest Service is currently working on a separate EIS to comply with the Court's April 1, 1982 order. Hence, the court denies without prejudice the motion for an order declaring the injunction expired. The court emphasizes that the bulk sampling activities, as enumerated in the order, are enjoined until a court order terminates the injunction.

II. Clarification of Injunction

The motion for clarification and memorandum in support thereof by U.S. Borax request the court to declare that the injunction does not prohibit intervenor-defendants from conducting quarry operations on the Quartz Hill claims for the sole purpose of obtaining fill rock to construct a surface access road. The court's order must be read in the context of the memorandum accompanying it. Plaintiff sought and was granted injunctive relief related to "bulk sampling" activities. As a result, the court grants the motion to clarify by holding the April 1, 1982 order does not address ergo prohibit, quarry operations on the Quartz Hill claims for acquiring fill rock to be used in constructing a surface access road.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1) THAT the motion to declare the April 1, 1982 injunction expired is denied without prejudice.

2) THAT the motion to clarify the April 1, 1982 injunction is granted to the effect that the order does not prohibit authorized companies from conducting quarry operations on the Quartz Hill claims for the purpose of obtaining fill rock to construct a surface access road.