Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, Civ. A. No. 74-1184.
Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
Writing for the Court | HART |
Citation | 400 F. Supp. 454 |
Parties | CONCERNED ABOUT TRIDENT et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R. SCHLESINGER et al., Defendants, Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit California Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor. |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74-1184. |
Decision Date | 22 August 1975 |
400 F. Supp. 454
CONCERNED ABOUT TRIDENT et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
James R. SCHLESINGER et al., Defendants,
Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit California Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor.
Civ. A. No. 74-1184.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
August 22, 1975.
Irwin L. Schroeder, Geoffrey A. Mueller, Dept. of Justice, Lands Div., Richard C. Stearns, Dept. of the Navy, Washington, D.C., for defendants.
Raymond M. Momboisse, Ronald A. Zumbrun, Michael A. Lilly, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, Cal., and John H. Midlen, Jr., Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor.
FINDINGS OF FACT
HART, District Judge.
1. This action was filed on August 5, 1974, as a suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief by five organizations and two individual plaintiffs against James R. Schlesinger, individually and as Secretary of Defense, and J. William Middendorf II, individually and as Secretary of the Navy.
2. The action alleges defendants' failure to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (hereinafter "NEPA"), as well as other federal statutes and regulations with respect to the development of the Navy's "Trident System."
3. Plaintiff, Concerned About Trident (CAT), is a non-profit corporation, formed with the purpose of taking any and all action, including the initiation of this lawsuit, necessary to prevent construction and operation of the proposed Trident support base at Bangor, Washington. Concerned About Trident has approximately 400 members, about 145 of whom live in Kitsap County, Washington.
CAT's activities have related primarily to the determination of defendants to place the dedicated site for the Trident Program at Bangor, Washington. Those activities included testimony and written comments before the Department of the Navy ("Navy") at hearings on the Trident Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"), written comments on the DEIS, and providing speakers at various meetings of church, civic and environmental organizations.
4. Plaintiff, Hood Canal Environmental Council (HCEC), is a non-profit corporation formed in 1969 and interested in proper management of the natural resources of the Hood Canal and surrounding area. The Council has approximately 325 members, 165 of whom live in Kitsap County.
HCEC activities include the advocacy, development and implementation of environmental planning for the Hood Canal and adjacent land areas.
HCEC's activities have included study and analysis of the environmental and other effects of the decision to locate the dedicated site for the Trident System at Bangor. Those activities include testimony and written comments before the Department of the Navy at hearings on the DEIS, written comments on the DEIS and providing speakers at various meetings of church, civic and conservation organizations.
5. Plaintiff, Friends of the Earth (FOE), is a non-profit corporation organized in 1969 for the conservation and protection of the natural resources of the United States. FOE has more than 20,000 members throughout the United States, 36 of whom live in Kitsap County.
FOE's activities have included study of the environmental effects of the decision to locate the dedicated site for the Trident System at Bangor. These activities include testimony and written comments before the Department of the Navy at hearings on the DEIS, written comments on the DEIS, and providing speakers at various meetings of church, civic and environmental organizations.
6. Plaintiff, Washington Environmental Council (WEC), is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1969 with the purpose of securing environmental planning for the State of Washington. It has about 1,000 individual members, of whom about 50 live in Kitsap County, and about 60 corporate members, including CAT and HCEC.
WEC's primary activities include the taking of all steps necessary and proper to secure environmental statewide planning for the State of Washington. WEC also undertakes limited environmental planning activities outside the State of Washington.
7. Plaintiff, The Wilderness Society, is a national conservation society that was formed in 1935 for the conservation and protection of American wilderness.
8. Plaintiff Walter Heller owns land in Kitsap County along the Hood Canal in the vicinity of the Bangor Annex in which he lives part-time.
Plaintiff Max Starcevich lives in property owned by his wife in Kitsap County along the Hood Canal.
9. Defendant James R. Schlesinger, presently is and was Secretary of Defense and an officer of the United States at the time this action was filed. As such, he exercises administrative supervision over the entire Department of Defense, including the Department of the Navy, its officers, agents and employees.
10. Defendant J. William Middendorf II, presently is and was Secretary of the Navy when this action was filed and is responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the conduct of the official business of the Department of the Navy.
11. Defendant-Intervenor Pacific Legal Foundation is a non-profit legal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California for the purpose of engaging in matters affecting the public interest.
12. Defendants have determined to locate the Support Site for the Trident Program at Bangor, Washington. This site, described throughout these Findings as the dedicated site, occupies approximately 7,000 acres on the Hood Canal in the Puget Sound Basin, Kitsap County, in the State of Washington. The facilities required by this site include buildings, piers, transportation, communications, power and water supply systems, and waste disposal systems. During its operation, the site will directly employ no less than 4,400 military personnel and 3,500 civilians. Placement of the site at Bangor will result in an increase of approximately 30,000 persons to the present population of Kitsap County and surrounding areas.
13. Kitsap County is situated on the Kitsap Peninsula in the Puget Sound Basin. The County is set between the Olympic and Cascade Mountain Ranges in northwestern Washington. The County, as of 1970, had a population of approximately 102,000, with a population density of 259 persons per square mile. The County, except for one small city, Bremerton, can be characterized as semi-rural.
14. The general comprehensive development plan currently utilized by the County reflects a general policy to direct growth to areas adjacent to the existing urban centers while maintaining the primarily semi-rural character of Kitsap County.
15. Kitsap County is bounded on the west by the Hood Canal. The Hood Canal is a salt water body, on the west shore of which are the Olympic Peninsula and the Olympic Mountains. The mountains rise precipitously to their summits from the shores of the Canal. The natural beauty of Kitsap County has been throughout its history and is now a significant factor in the shaping of the lives and life styles of people residing in it. Many of the total number of people residing in Kitsap County have gone there because of the unique location and natural beauty of the County and the life style which stems therefrom.
16. In or about 1960, the Navy commenced deployment of a Nuclear Submarine Launch Ballistic Missile System, denominated the Polaris System, which consisted of the Polaris submarine and various missiles used in conjunction with the vessel.
17. Subsequently, defendants developed the Poseidon missile for use with the Polaris submarine. As of mid-1973, the Polaris/Poseidon System consisted of 41 nuclear powered submarines, each containing 16 missiles.
18. Beginning in 1966, the Secretary of Defense initiated a top-secret study known as STRAT-X, which was designed to investigate strategic weapon
19. In February, 1968, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations established an Advanced Development Objective (ADO) ordering research and development to begin on an Undersea Long-Range Missile System (ULMS), which was the initial name for the Trident System, according to concepts established by the STRAT-X study.* Trident development was established in order for the United States to maintain the superiority and survivability of its sea-based nuclear deterrent force in the face of anticipated Soviet anti-submarine warfare improvements over the next few decades.
20. The ADO established certain strategic design characteristics that would be required...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. of Puerto Rico v. Muskie, Civ. A. No. 80-2117
...so as to be unreviewable under the APA, yet still be subject to the requirements of NEPA. In Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454 (D.D.C., 1975), modified in 555 F.2d 817 (C.A.D.C., 1977), Plaintiffs challenged a federal decision to construct a support facility for the Tr......
-
Devine v. White, No. 81-1893
...the decision" or "the Board reopens and reconsiders a case on its own motion." 31 See generally Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 478-79 (D.D.C.1975), modified sub nom. Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 (D.C.Cir.1977); Hoskin v. Resor, 324 F.Supp. 271,......
-
Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Commissioner of Health and Hospitals of Cambridge
...(D.Utah 1982) (scope of derivative sovereign immunity afforded to defense subcontractor); Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 482-483 (D.D.C.1975) (political question doctrine), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom. Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 1......
-
Coleman v. Block, No. A1-83-47.
...it would be an injustice to the 663 F. Supp. 1329 latter to permit him to now assert them.'" Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 478 (D.D.C.1975) cause remanded 555 F.2d 817, quoting Galliher v. Caldwell, 145 U.S. 368, 372, 12 S.Ct. 873, 874, 36 L.Ed. 738 (1892). This i......
-
Com. of Puerto Rico v. Muskie, Civ. A. No. 80-2117
...so as to be unreviewable under the APA, yet still be subject to the requirements of NEPA. In Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454 (D.D.C., 1975), modified in 555 F.2d 817 (C.A.D.C., 1977), Plaintiffs challenged a federal decision to construct a support facility for the Tr......
-
Devine v. White, No. 81-1893
...the decision" or "the Board reopens and reconsiders a case on its own motion." 31 See generally Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 478-79 (D.D.C.1975), modified sub nom. Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 (D.C.Cir.1977); Hoskin v. Resor, 324 F.Supp. 271,......
-
Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Commissioner of Health and Hospitals of Cambridge
...(D.Utah 1982) (scope of derivative sovereign immunity afforded to defense subcontractor); Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 482-483 (D.D.C.1975) (political question doctrine), aff'd in part and rev'd in part sub nom. Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 1......
-
Coleman v. Block, No. A1-83-47.
...it would be an injustice to the 663 F. Supp. 1329 latter to permit him to now assert them.'" Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F.Supp. 454, 478 (D.D.C.1975) cause remanded 555 F.2d 817, quoting Galliher v. Caldwell, 145 U.S. 368, 372, 12 S.Ct. 873, 874, 36 L.Ed. 738 (1892). This i......
-
WARS, WALLS, AND WRECKED ECOSYSTEMS: THE CASE FOR PRIORITIZING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION IN A NATIONAL SECURITY-CENTRIC LEGAL SYSTEM.
...Hillary Gell, and Anna Laird for their support throughout the research and writing process. (1) Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger, 400 F. Supp. 454, 484 (D.D.C. (2) The term "NDNS agencies" will be used throughout this Chapter to refer collectively to both the U.S. Department of Defens......