- 8 - 
FERDINAND J. MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
SUITE 106 
OLD TOWN CENTER 
17 WEST JEFFERSON ST. 
ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 
20H50 
"The harm against which NEPA’s impact 
statement requirement was directed was 
not solely or even primarily adverse 
consequences to the environment; such 
consequences may ensue despite the 
fullest compliance. Rather NEPA was 
intended to ensure that decisions about 
federal actions would be made only after 
responsible decision makers had fully 
adverted to the environmental consequences 
of the actions and had decided that the 
public benefits flowing from the actions 
outweighed their environmental costs. 
Thus the harm with which courts must 
be concerned in NEPA cases is_ not 
strictly speaking, harm to the 
environment, but rather the failure of 
decision-makers to take environmental 
factors into account in the way that NEPA 
mandates . And for the purposes of deciding 
whether equitable relief is appropriate, 
we think that this harm matures simultaneously 
with NEPA's requirements, i. e . , at the time 
the agency is, under NEPA obliged to file 
the impact statement and fails to do so. " 
The usual requirements that for preliminary injunctive 
relief to lie, the Court must balance the probability of plaintiff's 
success on the merits is, as indicated above, not strictly required 
because of the nature of this action. However, even if plaintiff were 
obliged to meet the conventional criteria, the Court's function is not 
to finally adjudicate the issues raised by the respective parties: 
"To justify a temporary injunction it 
is not necessary that the plaintiff's 
rights to a final decision, after a trial, 
be absolutely certain, wholly without 
doubt; if the other elements are present 
(i.e. , the balance of hardships tips 
decidedly toward plaintiff) it will 
ordinarily be enough that the plaintiff 
has raised questions going to the 
merits so serious, substantial, difficult 
and doubtful, as to make them a fair ground 
for litigation and thus for more deliberative 
investigation." Hamilton Watch Co. v Benrus 
Watch Co., 206 F 2d, 738, 740. 
301 270-2230 
[Appendix C — 132] 
