Opinion ID: 311492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Part V-The Sufficiency of the Environmental Impact

Text: Statement 314 Finally, I dissent from the refusal of the majority to decide whether the Environmental Impact Statement is sufficient or not sufficient. This is a monstrous refusal to perform a judicial obligation with respect to a vital matter and in my opinion is completely unjustified. When the majority claims that this disposition of the case will expedite it; that it questions whether resolution of the NEPA issues presented to [it] at this time will have any practical significance (pp. 889, 890, supra), it is attempting to deny the obvious. The issue is presented to us, it is ripe for decision and the parties (as well as the nation) have a right to have it decided now in its present form. Since this portion of the majority decision also relies heavily upon its misinterpretation of the legislative history involving section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, the decision is infirm in that respect and it should not be assumed that another court would follow that part of the decision in the event it undertakes to pass upon the sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Statement. 315 Moreover, there is little likelihood that the controlling environmental facts will change with the passage of time and hence the present is as good a time to decide the issue as the future. The argument that the Canadian alternative and Canadian studies may alter the situation is highly speculative and is insufficient to support a refusal of this court to pass on the issue before it. The calculation by the court as to the extent of the delay its opinion will cause may also prove to be unfounded. Because of the great importance of the matter Congress or the Supreme Court may act quickly and thus there would be no substantial change in the material facts affecting the issues surrounding the Impact Statement. 316 The majority opinion tells the parties that on this question they should come back another day. I believe such judicial insouciance to be indefensible. On a matter as important as this, are we going to compel the United States Government, the State of Alaska and our citizens to accept piecemeal decisions, send them away from our court uninformed on probably the most important issue in the case and compel them to come back again several years later only to be sent back again because the Impact Statement may, in their opinion, contain a deficiency it might claim exists now? Is this controversy of mammoth public concern to be another recurring Three Sisters Bridge situation where this court finds new obstacles each time the case comes up? 35 317 In my view the Impact Statement adequately furnishes all the material necessary for a resolution of the issues. 318 The major challenge to the adequacy of the Impact Statement raised by appellants has been that its discussion of the alternatives to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has not complied with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA directs not only that an agency must make a detailed statement . . . on alternatives to the proposed action, 36 but also that the agency shall study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 37 The Guidelines of the Counsel on Environmental Quality, promulgated to advise federal agencies concerning compliance with NEPA, state that these sections require 319 [a] rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of alternative actions that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects. . . . Sufficient analysis of such alternatives and their costs and impact on the environment should accompany the proposed action through the agency review process in order not to foreclose prematurely options which might have less detrimental effects. 38 320 Further, recent decisions in our circuit have developed guidelines to direct agency compliance with these sections. In Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. A. E. C., 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 449 F. 2d 1109 (1971), we said the purpose of the requirement to discuss alternatives in the Impact Statement was to ensure that each agency decision maker has before him and takes into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project (including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance. Only in that fashion is it likely that the most intelligent, optimally beneficial decision will ultimately be made. 321 146 U.S.App.D.C. at 38, 449 F.2d at 1114. 322 More recently in NRDC v. Morton, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 5, 458 F.2d 827 (1972) we spoke specifically to the scope of the alternatives requirement and the extent to which such alternatives must be discussed in the Impact Statement. There we adopted a rule of reason with respect to NEPA's requirements concerning discussion of alternatives, finding that there must be a presentation of the environmental risks incident to reasonable alternative courses of action. 39 We noted that the discussion of the environmental effects of alternatives need not be exhaustive, but [w]hat is required is information sufficient to permit a reasoned choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. 40 Implicit in this rule of reason approach is that the environmental effects of such reasonable alternatives need be discussed only reasonably. We stated there that in discussing alternatives, NEPA did not require  'crystal ball' inquiry, and that the statute must be construed in the light of reason if it is not to demand what is, fairly speaking, not meaningfully possible, given the obvious, that the resources of energy and research-and time-available to meet the Nation's needs are not infinite. 41 323 Thus, as I see it, the inquiry for the court here is to determine whether the discussion of the alternatives in the Impact Statement presented sufficient information to permit the Secretary of the Interior to make a reasoned choice of alternatives insofar as environmental aspects are concerned, being mindful of the fact that the adequacy of the discussion of the environmental consequences of a particular alternative shall be judged in light of the reasonable feasibility of pursuing that alternative. 324 In this proceeding two alternatives have borne the brunt of objections-the alternative of building a trans-Canada pipeline, and the alternative of deferral, i. e., deferring a decision on the permit to build TAPS. In my opinion the discussion of each alternative in the Impact Statement is in sufficient compliance with the requirements of NEPA.
325 In my view an examination of the record before us reveals that the Department of the Interior expended sufficient efforts to gather information concerning the environmental effects of a Canadian alternative to make a meaningful decision. The possibility of a Canadian alternative was mentioned in the draft Impact Statement issued in January, 1971, and thereafter testimony was taken from the public at hearings held in Washington and Alaska. When the study for the final Impact Statement was begun in early 1971, Task Force C, comprised initially of scientists from the Geological Survey and headed by the Director, was directed to study literature and available information concerning the environment along possible Canadian routes. Later, this study group was expanded to include experts in wildlife biology and land planning. This Task Force developed a description of the environment that would be affected by various trans-Canadian routes, and it analyzed the environmental impact of building pipelines along each route. Their report formed the basis for the discussion of the environmental impact of the Canadian alternative in the final Impact Statement. 326 In addition to this Task Force, the Department of the Interior requested information on a trans-Canadian pipeline from both Alyeska and the Candian government. Alyeska responded by furnishing the Department with seven studies it had conducted on Canadian routes between 1968 and 1971. Further, these applicants were requested by the Secretary to confer with the Canadian government concerning a Canadian pipeline, and the results of this conference were reported to the Secretary. The information received from the Canadian government appears to have been insubstantial. 42 327 It is also my conclusion that the information actually present in the Impact Statement was sufficient to permit the Secretary of the Interior and the other parties specified by NEPA 43 to make a reasoned choice of alternatives, with respect to environmental aspects. The Impact Statement examined five oil pipeline alternative routes through Canada. 44 Each discussion of an alternative route contained a detailed description of many ecological elements in the area of that particular pipeline route, including: topography, drainage, vegetation, surficial deposits, permafrost, bedrock, seismicity, climate, fishery resources, and wildlife resources. Then each alternative contained an evaluation of the potential environmental impact that the area would experience during both construction and operation of the pipeline. Finally, the discussion of the Canadian alternatives ends with a summary of the environmental effects of each alternative and the potential natural hazards which the area would pose to a pipeline. Also, after discussion of rail and sea routes, all land and sea routes are compared in a table. 45 The Impact Statement also contained various discussions of alternative gas pipeline routes. 46 328 The major objection voiced by the appellants is that the Impact Statement does not systematically examine the environmental advantages of the concept of a common corridor where both a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline would traverse Canada. While the common corridor concept could have been studied and analyzed more than it was, it is my conclusion that the Impact Statement's treatment of it was not impermissibly deficient. As mentioned above, the Impact Statement contained considerable discussion and comparison of both oil and gas pipelines across Canada. A common corridor approach is only a variation of the concept of a trans-Canadian pipeline-which alternative was discussed in detail. Though the common corridor approach is not neatly analyzed in one place, the elements of that approach are discussed so as to put all of the environmental facts, as well as they were known at that time, 47 sufficiently before the decision makers. 48 In my view a failure to organize the particular environmental effects and impact of a common corridor into one easily readable table, when such information is already present though not in cumulative form, cannot alone support a finding that the requirements of NEPA have not been met. 49 In this respect all one has to do is to consider the material for the oil pipeline and the gas pipeline together. 329 My conclusion that this alternative was sufficiently treated is also based upon an appraisal of the facts in the record relating to the feasibility of a common corridor, and the practical difficulties inherent in conducting an analysis of such a hypothetical corridor. 50 The factors which bear on the reasonableness of the Canadian alternative apply equally to a common corridor, which is but a variation of that alternative and are discussed below. While intuitively it would seem that it should not be too difficult to quantify the environmental advantages of a common corridor over the TAPS proposal, the contrary appears to be the case. An inherent limitation on the detail of such a quantification is the fact that neither the trans-Canadian oil pipeline, nor the trans-Canadian gas pipeline is even in the planning stage. 51 When the Department was comparing various trans-Canadian oil pipeline alternatives in preparing the Impact Statement it refrained from quantifying these various routes because of a dearth of concrete information, due to the fact that such pipelines were unplanned. 52 It would seem to me to be unreasonable to require more exactness of the Department when additional uncertainties are introduced for comparison, i. e., the environmental effects and savings of an unplanned oil pipeline and an unplanned gas pipeline in a common corridor. I thus find the Impact Statement to be sufficient on the only serious attack made by appellants-the claim that the Canadian alternatives were insufficiently covered. In addition there are other factors which indicate that the alternative of an oil (or oil and gas) pipeline through Canada is not a reasonable present alternative and these facts also bear on the sufficiency of the treatment actually given this alternative in the Impact Statement. 330 No person has applied to build an oil pipeline through Canada and there is no proof that Canada could adequately finance a 51% share of the tremendous construction cost that would be required (see discussion below). The route through Canada is uncharted and unknown but of necessity would be much longer. It would possibly cause greater damage to the environment and greatly increase the cost of the pipeline and the share of the cost that Canada would have to bear. 331 Moreover, requiring the pipeline to be routed through Canada would involve factors that might indicate the route would be contrary to the national interest of the United States, particularly to our national security. What is needed now is a 48-inch pipeline for oil from the North Slope of Alaska and not a pipeline that can be compelled to share its throughput capacity with whatever oil may be discovered in the adjoining MacKenzie Basin in Canada. That might require another pipeline. Some of the same considerations which rule out a Canadian pipeline for oil, which is vital to the national interest and security of the United States, are of the same character as the considerations that induced Canada to build the Canadian Pacific as an all-Canadian railroad through the barren and unprofitable Laurentian shield north of Lake Superior. 53 332 In addition United States law may prohibit the granting of right of way over our public lands for a pipeline that, because it also would run through Canada, would have to be owned and effectively controlled by Canada. The exact Canadian requirement in this respect is not known, but if Canada did require that it control a 51% interest in the Canadian portion of the pipeline, as Canada has indicated it would require, 54 a legal impediment might exist under our existing statutes. Actually, control of 51% of the Canadian portion would be effective control of 100% of the entire pipeline. No law in the United States imposes a similar restriction on Canadians constructing a pipeline in the United States. This 51% control requirement might bring into play the following statutes: The Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 181, 55 provides that deposits of oil and gas shall be subject to disposition to citizens of the United States or to any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any state. This would permit Canadian citizens to control 100% of a United States corporation and to act through such corporation. This same statute, however, provides that citizens of another country, whose laws or regulations deny similar or like privileges to citizens or corporations of this country, shall not by stock ownership, stock holding, or stock control, own any interest in any lease acquired under the provisions of this chapter. 333 Another section of the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 185, 56 provides that the provisions of section 181 apply mutatis mutandis to oil and gas pipelines. Thus, since United States laws provide that rights of way for oil pipelines through public lands may only be granted by the Secretary of the Interior to applicants who possess the citizenship and nationality qualifications required by section 181, a Canadian insistence on 51% control of a pipeline through Canada might mean that a United States pipeline controlled as to its throughput capacity by Canadian citizens could not acquire a grant of any right of way in the United States because Canadian laws, customs and regulations do not permit a pipeline in Canada to be controlled by United States Citizens through a Canadian corporation. In the language of section 181, citizens and corporations of the United States would be denied the similar or like privilege of controlling pipelines in Canada. 334 Canadian control of the throughput capacity of the pipeline might also prevent the Secretary of the Interior from regulating the use of the pipeline and from controlling the proportionate amounts of oil from U.S. Government lands that the pipeline must carry. The statute imposes such powers and duties upon the Secretary. 57
335 The main objection raised concerning the Impact Statement's treatment of the alternative of temporarily deferring approval of the TAPS permit is that this treatment does not systematically quantify and describe environmental studies that are presently planned or in progress, or that should be undertaken, that would be helpful to fill in the gaps of the present knowledge. Despite this objection, however, it is clear that the Impact Statement does refer to a number of studies which are presently taking place which would provide relevant information for the construction and operation of the pipeline. 58 Further, the Impact Statement on numerous occasions points out where knowledge on a certain issue is incomplete and refers to research, if any, which is under way. 59 In my opinion this treatment was sufficient to permit an informed decision on the environmental benefits of the alternative of deferral. 336 All these factors make it unnecessary, in my opinion, for the current Environmental Impact Statement to discuss further an oil pipeline through Canada; and with respect to the discussion of the Canadian alternatives and all other issues, I find the Environmental Impact Statement to be sufficient under the statute. 337 I respectfully dissent to the extent indicated above. 338