National Audubon Society v. Hodel, A83-425 Civ.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. A83-425 Civ.,A84-401 Civ. and A84-402 Civ.,A83-425 Civ. |
| Parties | NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, Bering Sea Fishermens' Association, Trustees for Alaska, the Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Donald P. HODEL, William P. Horn, Robert Jantzen, Keith Schreiner, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Calista Corporation, Sea Lion Corporation, Malcolm Baldridge, John V. Byrne, Defendants. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, Trustees for Alaska, the Wilderness Society Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. COOK INLET REGION, INC., Calista Corporation, Sea Lion Corporation, Defendants. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, Trustees for Alaska, the Wilderness Society Defenders of Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Robert PUTZ, Regional Director, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Calista Corporation, Sea Lion Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Eric Smith, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, Kenneth Berlin, James P. Leape, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Bruce Landon, Asst. U.S. Atty., Stephen C. Hillard, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., William H. Bittner, Calista Corp., Sea Lion Corp., Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants.
On August 10, 1983, Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior, William P. Horn, acting on behalf of then Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt (the Secretary), entered into a land exchange agreement with representatives of three Alaska Native corporations. The three corporations, Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Calista Corp., and Sea Lion Corp., are referred to collectively as CIRI. The Secretary transferred to the Native Groups part of St. Matthew Island, a wilderness area within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, in exchange for various land interests in the Kenai and Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuges. The driving force behind the land exchange was to enable CIRI to lease the St. Matthew Island parcel to private entities for construction and operation of support facilities for oil exploration and potential oil development in the Navarin Basin of the Bering Sea. In making the exchange, the Secretary relied upon the authorization granted in § 1302(h) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.1 The conveyance is for fifty years, or so long as commercial oil production activities occur in the Navarin Basin.
Provisions were included in the land exchange agreement for an interim period of cooperative management between CIRI and the Secretary. The agreement included additional conditions obligating CIRI to comply with federal law, and, in certain instances, to obtain necessary permits from government agencies prior to land development. In addition, the agreement imposed restrictions on land use, and included stipulations to mitigate environmental impacts as well as to ensure restoration upon eventual reversion of the land to the federal government.
On the day the exchange agreement was signed, the National Audubon Society and other environmental groups,2 joined by the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, filed a complaint in this court in case A83-425 (the exchange case) for declaratory and injunctive relief. The named defendants in the suit include the Secretary of the Interior and Native groups. The relief sought by the plaintiffs (collectively referred to as Audubon) is a judicial declaration that the exchange agreement is unlawful and void, and a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from carrying out any part of the agreement, thereby prohibiting the defendants from conducting any activity on St. Matthew Island. In September 1984, two other related suits were filed also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in this court. These cases will be considered in turn.
Motions have been filed in case A83-425 for summary judgment. I now conclude on the face of the administrative record that the Secretary, in entering into the land exchange, abused the discretion entrusted to him by law.
Several provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) are drawn into the issues of this litigation. Congress enacted ANILCA3 in 1980. The Act set aside approximately 105 million acres of federal land in Alaska for protection of natural resource values by permanent federal ownership and management.4 The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), within which St. Matthew Island lies, was included as lands designated for environmental protection under ANILCA.5
Congress enacted ANCSA6 in 1971 to effectuate a comprehensive settlement of all Native claims based on subsistence use and occupancy of land in Alaska. Several provisions of ANCSA were incorporated into the statutory framework of ANILCA.7
St. Matthew Island was established as a wildlife refuge in 1909. It was designated a wilderness area in the National Wilderness Preservation System on October 23, 1970. Through this designation, Congress declared its intention that St. Matthew Island remain in its pristine and natural form.8 Many factors contribute to the island's value as a wilderness area, including its isolation, remoteness, distance from shipping lanes and aircraft routes, rugged and varied terrain, and unique bird and mammal populations. Aside from minor evidence of past human presence on the island, St. Matthew remains essentially natural in appearance.
The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) prepared in connection with plans for federal oil and gas leases in the Navarin Basin outlines three scenarios for transportation of oil and gas from the lease area: (1) pipeline to St. Matthew Island, the primary scenario, (2) pipeline to St. Paul Island, the alternative scenario, and (3) offshore loading. The offshore loading scenario includes locating marine and air support facilities on St. Matthew Island. Of the three scenarios, two require development activities on the island.
Under the primary scenario, St. Matthew Island would play a role during both Phase I, the exploration phase, and Phase II, the development and production phase. During Phase I, primary marine and air logistics support would operate out of existing facilities in Dutch Harbor/Unalaska and Cold Bay. St. Matthew Island would serve as a forward base for limited air support.
During Phase II, both marine and air support facilities would be located on St. Matthew Island. Crude oil would be piped to a major storage, loading, and processing terminal on the island, and then transferred to shuttle tankers for shipment to a remote storage and transshipment terminal on the Alaska peninsula. Gas resources, if developed, would be piped to facilities on the island, liquefied and transported direct to market by tankers.
The exchange provision in § 1302(h) of ANILCA imposes two requirements before a land exchange may be approved. First, the Secretary must determine that the exchange will result in "acquiring lands for the purposes of ANILCA." Second, the exchange must further the "public interest" if the lands exchanged are of unequal value.9
There are two principal documents in the record which explain the considerations and the rationale upon which the Secretary rested his decision to proceed with the land exchange. These include the Department of the Interior Record of Decision and the Public Interest Determination for the Proposed Acquisition of Inholdings in Kenai and Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuges by Exchange for Lands on St. Matthew Island, Alaska.
These documents disclose that the Secretary concluded that the land exchange met both requirements of § 1302(h). In connection with the first requirement, the Secretary has concluded that ANILCA's purposes would be furthered in several important respects: (1) the interests obtained in the Kenai and Yukon Delta NWRs would "be consistent with and further the purposes of the refuges to which they are added"; (2) these acquisitions would "consolidate significant recreational lands and wildlife habitat lying within units of the NWR System and National Wilderness Preservation System into permanent federal ownership"; (3) wildlife management benefits would result from this consolidation of conservation system units (CSUs); (4) protection of prime waterfowl habitat would be increased; (5) Native selection conveyance expenses would be reduced; and (6) the possibility of inconsistent land use by Natives within CSUs would be reduced.
Concerning the second requirement, the Secretary has concluded that the exchange would also further the public interest. The Secretary offered seven major reasons for his conclusion:
(1) The exchange advances longterm CSU and general wildlife conservation and management objectives by preventing the creation of over 100 Native inholdings within CSUs without permanent loss of CSU acreage; providing federal management and public enjoyment benefits which comport with congressional intent that CSU inholdings be eliminated primarily through land exchanges; and improving the protection provided by § 22(g) of ANCSA10 through a nondevelopment easement and permanent federal management of CSU lands.
(2) The exchange as a whole also advances the public interest in CSU objectives during the short term because the United States will secure land interests in over three times the CSU acreage it will be conveying; will obtain clear title to and interest in more biologically and recreationally significant lands in terms of wildlife habitat quality than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alaska Industrial Dev. & Exp. Auth. v. Biden
... ... National" Wildlife Refuge (“ANWR” or the ... “Refuge”) ... \xC2" ... Hodel is unavailing. [ 119 ] The ... “withdrawal” at issue in that ... the Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society - Yukon; ... Defenders of Wildlife; Environment America, Inc.; ... Adams , 477 F.Supp. 994, ... 1006 (D.N.H. 1979); Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v ... Hodel , 606 F.Supp. 825, 846 (D. Alaska 1984); City ... ...
-
Sturgeon v. Masica
...land in Alaska for protection of natural resource values by permanent federal ownership and management.” Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 606 F.Supp. 825, 827–28 (D.Alaska 1984). Portions of those lands were used to expand existing units of the National Park System and create new units, which ......
-
The Wilderness Society v. Babbitt
...Hanlon v. Barton, 740 F.Supp. 1446 (D.Alaska 1988); Sierra Club v. Penfold, 664 F.Supp. 1299 (D.Alaska 1987); National Audubon Soc'y v. Hodel, 606 F.Supp. 825 (D.Alaska 1984). For D.C. cases, see for example NRDC v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C.Cir.1988); Sierra Club v. United States Dep't of T......
-
COMMITTEE OF 100 ON FEDERAL CITY v. Hodel, Civ. A. No. 85-0059.
...park had standing to sue because its economic and aesthetic interests were within the zone of interests); National Audubon Society v. Hodel, 606 F.Supp. 825, 831-33 (D.Alaska 1984) (organizations had standing to seek declaratory relief to prevent a proposed land exchange in Alaska authorize......