ELR Citation: ELR 20473
No(s). s. 89-2345, -2393 (JHG) (D.D.C. Jul 22, 1991)

The court holds that environmental groups have standing to challenge the legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS) accompanying an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) report by the Department of the Interior (DOI) concerning future management of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR's) coastal plain, that the report's compliance with ANILCA is not judicially reviewable, and that DOI must issue a draft supplemental environmental impact statement, subject to notice and comment. The court holds that collateral estoppel does not bar the United States from raising standing. However, the court holds that the government is collaterally estopped from relitigating the Ninth Circuit ruling that the LEIS is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) notice-and-comment procedures. Because their members use ANWR, the court holds that environmental groups have standing—they fall within the sort of interest NEPA protects and have a geographical nexus to the injury. The environmental groups' assertion that their participation rights will be infringed by the inadequate information presented to Congress in the LEIS also establishes standing. The court holds that the case is judiciable. Because Congress has not yet acted on the LEIS, the separation of powers doctrine is not infringed by the court's remedies. The court holds that to the extent that deadlines for the report required under ANILCA conflict with DOI's ability to supplement the LEIS, NEPA still applies. ANILCA's statutory time constraint is not an implied waiver of NEPA. The court holds that Congress did not create a private right of action for citizens to challenge the adequacy of the §1002 report to Congress and that the reporting provision is not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court holds that DOI is not required to comply with §810 of ANILCA, which requires DOI to fulfill certain notice requirements where an action will affect subsistence uses, until actions are authorized by Congress. The court next holds that plaintiffs have satisfied the four requirements necessary to issue an injunction, but issues relief in the form of a declaratory judgment rather than a preliminary injunction. On the likelihood of success on the merits, the court first finds that the LEIS may be subject to supplementation and that the report constitutes significant new information. DOI did not consider the environmental impacts of this new information in the report itself. The court thus finds that the environmental groups are likely to be successful on the merits of the claim that DOI must supplement its LEIS in light of its new report. The court holds that NEPA presumes injury where participation in the NEPA process is denied. The court holds that the harm to DOI and third parties is negligible. An injunction will not interfere with DOI's communication with Congress, but will provide public information as required by NEPA. The court holds that the public interest weighs in favor of a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS). The court enters a declaratory judgment that DOI violated NEPA by not circulating a supplemental EIS to its report.

[Related cases are published at 16 ELR 20507 and 17 ELR 20323.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Robert W. Adler
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1350 New York Ave. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 783-7800

Sarah Chasis
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
40 W. 20th St., New York NY 10011
(212) 727-2700

Counsel for Defendants
Gary B. Randall, Anthony P. Hoang
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000