Wilderness Society v. Morton

No. 928-70 (D.D.C. August 15, 1972)

The environmental impact statement for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, submitted by the Department of the Interior March 20, 1972, and the method of arriving at it, meet all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and comply with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines under NEPA. All rights of way and permits necessary for the building, maintenance and operation of the pipeline are authorized by law. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied; the injunction against defendants is dissolved; and the complaints are dismissed. (Counsel for defendant Alyeska, however, promised in open court that no construction activities of any kind would be undertaken by his client pending a decision by the Court of Appeals, and that, except for the issuance of a permit, defendants would give plaintiffs 30 days notice before beginning any activities not taking place at the time the order was issued.)

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dennis M. Flannery
Saunders C. Hillyer
James N. Barnes
1600 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009

John F. Dienelt
1712 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Thomas B. Stoel, Jr.
1710 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Cordova
Warren Matthews
Theodore Dunn
Thomas F. Hogan
100 So. Washington Street
Rockville, Maryland 20850

Counsel for Defendants
Herbert Pittle
Thomas L. Mckevitt Attorneys, Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

John E. Nolan
Robert E. Jordan, III
Paul F. Mickey
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

William H. Allen
John Havelock
Richard Copaken
888 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

[2 ELR 20583]

Hart, J.

These cases have now been pending for more than two years. The matters involved are of very great importance to all the people of this country. All counsel agree that there is no issue of material fact between any of the parties hereto. The undisputed facts are set forth in great detail in the files of this case.

What is involved are the legal implications and the conclusions to be drawn from these facts.

It can be confidently anticipated that the final decision in this matter rests with the Supreme Court of the United States. It is deemed imperative that the appellate process be initiated as soon as possible. In view of this situation, and the tremendous costs involved, this Court will not delay this matter by detailed findings [2 ELR 20584] of fact that are undisputed, nor by an exhaustive, legal opinion which would require weeks and months to complete.

This Court will make only the necessary findings and conclusions to properly dispose of these cases in this court and to start them on the appellate road.

The Court makes the following findings:

The final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline, prepared by a special interagency task force for the Federal Task Force on Alaska Oil Development and published on March 20, 1972, by the U.S. Department of Interior, fulfills the following requirements:

(1) It reasonably sets forth the projects envirionmental impact.

(2) It reasonably sets forth the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented.

(3) It reasonably sets forth alternatives to the proposed project.

(4) It reasonably sets forth the relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and enhancement of long-term productivity.

(5) It reasonably sets forth any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed project if implemented.

(6) It reasonably sets forth conflicting views on the project.

(7) It, and the manner of arriving at it, complies with Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

(8) The Secretary of the Interior has not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously and there is substantial evidence in the light of the whole record to support his decision.

The right of way for pipeline is authorized by 30 U.S.C. 185.

The special land-use permits are legally authorized for the additional footage adjacent to the pipeline necessary for construction of same, including but not limited to, ice strips, mobile camps, base camps, ferry, ice bridge, access roads, interim communication centers and temporary air strips by 30 U.S.C. 185 and 189 and 43 U.S.C. 1, 2, 1201, 1361-1364, 1411-1418 and regulations thereunder.

The rights of way for pumping stations essential to operation of pipeline are authorized by 30 U.S.C. 185 and 189 and 43 U.S.C. 1201 and regulations thereunder.

The rights of way for permanent communications sites are authorized by 43 U.S.C. 961, and regulations thereunder.

The permits necessary for remotely controlled block-valve locations are authorized by 30 U.S.C. 185 and 189 and 43 U.S.C. 1201 and regulations thereunder.

The right of way to State of Alaska for road is authorized by 43 U.S.C. 932, and regulations thereunder.

The lease of airports to State of Alaska is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 211, and regulations thereunder.

The sites and right to purchase gravel by the State of Alaska and Alyeska are authorized by 30 U.S.C. 601-602, and regulations thereunder.

The 802 acre Special Land Use Permit for Terminal is authorized by 16 U.S.C. 551 and regulations thereunder.

Conclusions.

(1) The Environmental Impact Statement reasonably meets all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act which became effective January 1, 1970.

(2) The various rights of way and permits necessary for the building, maintenance and operation of the pipeline are authorized by law.

Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

The prayers of plaintiff and intervenors for preliminary and permanent injunction are denied.

The injunction heretofore issued is dissolved.

The complaints herein are hereby dismissed.

[Editor's note: The following material, not included in Judge Hart's memorandum opinion, is excerpted from pp. 366-68 of the transcript of the argument before the court.]

MR. JORDAN: Your Honor, on behalf of Alyeska, we are prepared to represent to the Court, and so do, that no construction activities of any kind will be undertaken pending a decision by the Court of Appeals. And by that I mean we will continue only those kinds of activities which have been in effect during the past months, including the activities authorized by Your Honor's recent ruling with respect to the surface of temporary access roads.

We would not undertake additional construction activities through the decision by the Court of Appeals and beyond that. If there were any expectation on our part with respect to undertaking anything further beyond the Court of Appeals, we would not do so until we had notified all plaintiffs and given them an opportunity to seek a stay.

THE COURT: Could we leave it at this: Should you begin any activities not taking place at present, except issuing a permit, that you will give the other side 30 days' notice?

MR. JORDAN: We can do that, Your Honor.

* * *

THE COURT: . . . There is no injunction in effect. Counsel for the oil companies has represented to [defendants] that they will do no further construction, other than the type of thing they are doing at the present time, which I permitted them under an order of two or three weeks ago, without giving [defendants] 30 days' notice.

That is not an injunction, that is an agreement by counsel and the oil companies which I have no question but that they would fulfill as any attorney who makes a promise to me I assume would carry out, and if he doesn't, he would wish he had.