jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Morton 4 ERC 1933 proval by this Circuit in Lathan v. Volpe, 455 ment’s “stake” in the project and thereby 1971), Judge Wright noted the difficulty of procuring an adequate consideration of environmental factors once a project is underway: environmental considerations. F.2d 1181, 1121 [3 ERC 1362] (9th Cir. Once a facility has been completely con- structed, the economic cost of any alteration may be very great. In the language of NEPA, there is likely to be an ‘irreverstble and irretrievable commitment of resources,’ which will inevitably restrict the Commission’s options. Either the licensee will have to undergo a major expense in making alterations in a completed facility or the environmental harm will have tobe tolerated. It is all too probable that the latter result would cometo pass. 449 F.2d at 1128. It follows that in order to insure that federal agencies do in fact give proper weight to eco- logical factors in the decision making process, there must be a severe limitation on the scope of all activity that furthers the project.) Otherwise, the impact statement may become merely a “‘progress report’’ filed sometime prior to the completion of the project. Stop H3 Assoc. v. Volpe, Civ. No. 72-3606 [3 ERC 1684] (D. Haw. decided October 18, 1972). See Judge Wright’s discussion of the “strict standard of compliance” mandated bythe procedural provisions of NEPA in Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Commuttee, Inc. v. Atomic En- ergy Commission, supra at 1112-1116. If the court adopted the rule advanced by defendants and considered the specific environmental impact of each segment of the project, much of the force of NEPA would be undercut. Almost every project can be divided. into smaller parts, some of which might not * have any appreciable effect on the environment. The court would be forced to take each project apart piece by piece, hole by hole and explosion by explosion. Work allowed to proceed because it does not have a specific environmental impact would increase the govern'S Cases in which similar activity has been en- joined pending formulation and approval of the en- vironmental impact statement include: Arhngton Coaittion On Transportation v. Volpe, [3 ERC 1362] 458 F.2d 1323 [3 ERC 1995] (4th Cir. 1972), Lathan v. Volpe, 455 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1971); Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission, 455 F.2d 412 [3 ERC 1595) (2d Cir. 1922); Keith v. Volpe, 4 E.R.C. 1350 (C.D. Cal. 1972); La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 337 F.Supp. 221 [3 ERC 1306} (N.D. Cal. 1971); Ward v. Ackroyd, 4 E.R.C. 1209 (D.Md. 1972); Morthside Tenants Rights Coalition v. Volpe, 4 E.R.C. 1347 (D. Wise. 1972), Goose Hollow Foothills League v. Romney, 334 F.Supp. 877 [3 ERC 1087] (D. Ore. 1971); En- vironmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 339 F.Supp. 806 {3 ERC 1553] (E.D. Tenn. 1972); Stop H-3 Assoc. v. Volpe, Civ. No. 72-3606 (3 ERC 1684] (D. Haw. decided October 18, 1972). influence the decision making process whenit is time to reevaluate the project in light of the For these reasons the court rejected similar arguments in the Stop f-3 Assocation case, supra, and does so again in this case. The test is whether the primary purpose of the activity is to further the project which has been enjomed. If so, and defendants are unable to show any irreparable injurythat will result as a consequence of not being allowed to go forward, then the activity must. be enjoined. While this will necessarily result in delay if the project is eventually approved, “‘[dJelay is the concomitant of the implementation of the procedures prescribed by NEPA... .” Greene County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission, 455 F.2d 412, 422 [3 ERC 1595] (2d Cir. 1972). ‘It is far more consistent with the purposes of [NEPA] to delay operation at a stage where real environmental protection may come about than at a stage where corrective action may be so costly as to be impos- sible.’ Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Com- multtee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commassion, supra at 1128. Therefore, this court having found that the primary purpose of the core drilling and seis- mic studies is to further the PACE project, and defendants failing to showanyirreparable injury that will result to them, it is ordered that these activities be enjoined pendingtrial on the merits. This Decision and Order shall constitute the court’s findings of fact and conclusions ot law as authorized by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ‘ "s, ‘ Sen . spe peocuyte ha “ JICARILLA APACHETRIBEv. MORTON U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit THE JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE OF INDIANS, et al.; NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, and ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. v. ROGERSC. B. MORTON,Secretary of the Interior, et al., No. 72-1634, January 2, 1973 AIR 1. Federal, state, and local regulation — Administrative agencies — Proce- dure before agencies (348.621) Liability by industry power ($52.21) Electric Department of Interior’s preparation and