4 ERC 1932 There is thus no reason to believe that Congress intended to afford the environmentofthe Trust Territory less protection than that provided for people and places underits jurisdiction in the fiftystates. [t] Accordingly, it is the conclusion ofthis court that Congress intended to include the Trust Territory within the coverage of NEPA. Specifically, it is held that the term “*Nation” as used in NEPAincludes the Trust Territory, and therefore that the actions of defendants with respect to the PACE project on Enewetak Atoll must conform to the provisions of NEPA. The court notes, in passing, that the Department of Defense apparently shares this court’s view of the scope of NEPA.In its regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. the Department has taken the following position: .. Geographical location of actions. (1) Environmental statements are requtred for actions described... {in] this section con- ducted anywhere in the world, except when conducted in, or partly in, arcas which are in or under the jurisdiction of a nation other than the United States. (Emphasis added). 32 C.F.R. § 214.5(b). Plaintiffs Have Standing The gist of the question of standing is whether the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversyas to assure that concrete adverseness will occur. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 [3 ERC 2039] (1972); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970); Plast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). There is no doubt that the Enewetakese have such a personal stake in the outcome of the present litigation.!> It is their ancestral homeland that is the site of the PACE project. No group of people are or could be more crucially affected by the federal action sought to be enjoined. '4 8 The fact that the Enewetakese have net lived on the atoil since 1947 does not undercut their stake in this litigation in light of the Government's decision to return them by the end of 1973. Moreover, during their years of exile they have demonstrated a continuing concern with the fate of Enewetak which as- sures their status as adverse parties. 4 The fact that the Enewetakese are non-resident aliens does not detract from their standing to sue in view of this court’s conclusion that NEPA is appli- cable to the Trust Territory. While it is true that non-resident aliens are denied standing in situations where the statute involved evinces such an intent— as in immigration disputes, see Braude v. Wirtz, 350 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1963)—-no such intent is apparent in NEPA. The term “‘citizen”’ is not used in the statute and the Administrative Procedure Act. one avenue upon which judicial review is based, is phrased in terms of “‘any person,” not “any citi- zen.”’ See 5 U.S.C. § 702. See also, Wilderness So- People ofEnewetak v. Laird ‘Scope of the Injunction The remaining issue before the court ts whether the scope of the preliminary injunction should preclude defendants from continuing the core drilling and seismic studies. It is argued that these activities should be exempted from the operation of the injunction because they have no appreciable effect on the environment, and because they will provide information of general value, apart from PACE,to scientists interested in the geology of coral atoils. With respect to this latter point, defendants contend that the core drilling and seismic studies really constitute a separate project lumped into the PACE program only because it was administratively convenient to do so for purposes of funding. The court must reject defendants’ arguments. Festimony at the hearing clearly established that the primary purpose of the core drilling and seismic studies ts to further the PACE program. They are not a separate project. Moreover, the court is not persuaded that the core drilling and seismic studies will have no appreciable impact on the delicate ecology of Enewetak. The total land area of the atoll is only 2.24 square statute miles and any reduction in the amount of arable land isa serious matter. Finally, the fact that the information produced by these activities may be valuable to the scientific communityis no justification for avoiding the requirements of NEPA. {2] But even assuming arguendo that the core drilling and seismic studies have no environmental impact, the court must still reject defendants’ position. NEPA dictafes a truly objective evaluation of the environmental factors whenever the judiciary ts forced to intervene in the agency decision making process be- cause of a failure to comply with the provisions of the statute. While such eval- uation is taking place, the possibility of project modification or abandonmentin light of envi- ronmental considerations can be realistically accommodated only by suspending all activity that furthers the project. This proposition flows principally from Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee. Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 [2 ERC 1779] (D.C. Cir. 1971), where it was held that NEPA requires each agencydecision maker have before him and take into proper aecount “all possible approaches to a particular project (including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance.” 449 F_2d at $114_Inlanguage quated with apciety v. Morton, supra n. 2 at 1102; Constructores Cuntes de Centroamerica, S.A. v. Hannah, 459 F.2d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1972). -, * “ *