rection given to the Forest Service in its man- 

 agement functions. It reinforced the provi- 

 sions of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. 

 The NEPA stated as its purpose "To declare a 

 national policy which will encourage produc- 

 tive and enjoyable harmony between man and 

 his environment; to promote efforts which 

 will prevent or eliminate damage to the en- 

 vironment and biosphere and stimulate the 

 health and welfare of man; to enrich the un- 

 derstanding of the ecological systems and nat- 

 ural resources important to the Nation; and to 

 establish a Council on Environmental 

 Quality." 



Section 102 of the NEPA contains the 

 following extremely important provisions: 



The Congress authorizes and directs that, 

 to the fullest extent possible: (l)the 

 policies, regulations, and public laws of 

 the United States shall be interpreted 

 and administered in accordance with the 

 policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all 

 agencies of the Federal Government 

 shall . . . identify and develop methods 

 and procedures . . . which will insure 

 that presently unquantified environ- 

 mental amenities and values may be giv- 

 en appropriate consideration in decision- 

 making along with economic and techni- 

 cal considerations ... [all agencies are 

 to] study develop and describe appropri- 

 ate alternatives to recommended courses 

 of action in any proposal which involves 

 unresolved conflicts concerning alterna- 

 tive uses of available resources . . . [and 

 to] initiate and utilize ecological infor- 

 mation in the planning and development 

 of resource-oriented projects . . . *J 

 (emphasis added). 



The NEPA is unequivocal in its specifi- 

 cation that alternatives of land management 

 are to be both identified and thoroughly eval- 

 uated. The courts have since given further em- 

 phasis to that requirement. In the case of 

 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. 

 John T. Volpe 57, the Supreme Court took im- 

 portant action. The case involved the decision 

 to route a six-lane highway through a public 



"28 L. Ed. 2d 136, 401 US 402, 1971. 



park in Memphis, Tennessee. The Department 

 of Transportation had shown no evidence that 

 it had investigated alternative routes. Neither 

 had it made a full assessment of the environ- 

 mental impact of its actions. The Court re- 

 manded the case to a lower court for adjudi- 

 cation. Separate opinions by Justices Black 

 and Brennan in the Overton Park case are an 

 important clue to future directions that the 

 Court might be expected to take. A reading of 

 their opinion indicates that they found it re- 

 pulsive to think that important decisions were 

 being made without the raising of a finger to 

 comply with congressional intent. 



The opinion in the case of Calvert Cliffs 

 Coordinating Committee, et al. v. U. S. Atom- 

 ic Energy Commission 54 is even more direct 

 in the interpretation it places on the NEPA. 

 Calling the act an "action-forcing" man- 

 date, the court said that agencies are com- 

 pelled to follow the mandate of the NEPA 

 and stated that "the procedural aspects are 

 not highly flexible, but rather establish a 

 strict standard of compliance." The court 

 showed that it is less willing to listen to argu- 

 ments about the time required to implement 

 the law than agencies are willing to offer them 

 as excuses for noncompliance. The court 

 stated: "The introduction of environmental 

 matters cannot have presented a radically un- 

 settling problem. And, in any event, the ob- 

 vious sense of urgency on the part of Congress 

 should make clear that a transition, however 

 'orderly,' must proceed at a pace faster than a 

 funeral procession." 



Although opinions may differ as to the in- 

 tent and meaning of the legislative direction 

 contained in the Act of 1897 and subsequent 

 acts, the NEPA is explicit in stating how any 

 such differences are to be resolved. Whenever 

 a statute leaves room for doubt as to its in- 

 tent, the act directs that it be "to the fullest 

 extent possible . . . interpreted and adminis- 

 tered in accordance with the policies" of the 

 act (see Donovan 1971). It further states that 

 the "policies and goals set forth in this act 

 are supplementary to those set forth in exist- 

 ing authorizations of Federal agencies." The 

 act is far reaching and there are indications 



449 F. 2d 1189 (D.C. Cir., 1971). 



32 



