ELR Citation: ELR 20558
No(s). 90-5106 (D.C. Cir. Feb 8, 1991)

The court holds that the Navy's environmental impact statement (EIS) for its planned submarine testing range near Ketchikan, Alaska, complied with the National Environmental Policy Act. The Navy studied 14 potential areas for testing the quietness of its Trident submarines, and after concluding on the Behm Canal near Ketchikan, proposed various restrictions on navigation in that area to protect equipment and to minimize interference with its testing. The court first holds that the Navy's EIS adequately discussed why the Behm Canal site was the only reasonable alternative out of the 14 sites originally assessed. A Navy study explained that no currently feasible methods existed to equip two other potential sites, which were capable of accommodating high speed Trident radiated noise trials, with the accuracy sought by the Navy. The court next holds that the Navy's final EIS (FEIS) satisfied Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requiring a brief discussion of the reasons why rejected possibilities were not reasonable alternatives. The Navy, after receiving criticism that its FEIS did not explain why Behm Canal was the only feasible site for the testing facility, issued an addendum briefly explaining why the other alternatives were not reasonable. Ultimately, the Navy modified some elements of its original plan to accommodate recreational and economic concerns expressed in comments submitted in response to the addendum. Moreover, the court holds that the CEQ regulation requiring agencies to make explicit reference to scientific and other sources relied on for conclusions in EISs does not require pinpoint citations, when an agency is explaining only why it decided that certain preliminarily identified sites were not reasonable alternatives. The addendum met this requirement by twice referring generally to the Navy study's technical discussion. Finally, the court holds that the Navy's refusal to conduct a survey of the proposed testing facility's impact on the region's ability to market itself as a wilderness experience was reasonable. The Navy's FEIS assessed the impacts on rental businesses, marinas, lodges, and commercial fishing interests, and the Navy agreed to schedule testing around peak fishing periods.

Counsel for Appellants
Edward Lee Rogers
113017th St. NW, Ste. 210, Washington DC 20036
(202) 835-1570

Counsel for Appellees
Jonathan B. Wiener
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Before: WALD, RUTH B. GINSBURG, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.