The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is as American as it gets. It was invented here, and far from being just an environmental review law (as so many imitators are around the globe), it reflects core ideas about how government should relate to citizens, and citizens to their government.

I. NEPA Is the One Law That Doesn't Presume That Government Has All the Answers

This Article looks at one recurring activity that falls within the purview of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): livestock grazing on arid and semi-arid U.S. Forest Service lands west of the Rockies. The relationship of this activity to environmental assessments (EAs), categorical exclusions (CEs), environmental impact statements (EISs), and ultimately §101 of NEPA are briefly described.

While environmental lawyers recognize that there is no contradiction between meaningful environmental review and timely completion of important public projects, there has been widespread concern that compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in particular NEPA's requirement for an environmental impact statement (EIS), will frustrate or even derail the major infrastructure projects that are central to President Barack Obama's stimulus program and the nation's economic recovery.

To many proponents of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Act will never fully realize its promise as long as it remains enforceable only as a procedural requirement. During the first decade of NEPA's existence, an open issue arguably existed as to whether NEPA imposed enforceable substantive requirements as well as procedural ones.

The 40th anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) birth calls forth images of a statute, perhaps framed in innocence, that has profound effects on decisionmaking by federal agencies. Though the legislative history is unclear, there is a strong suggestion that the U.S. Congress believed they were enacting a law that would allow agencies to write their own compliance ticket. This changed with a landmark case soon after NEPA was adopted that made the statute enforceable in federal courts.

To many proponents of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Act will never fully realize its promise as long as it remains enforceable only as a procedural requirement. During the first decade of NEPA's existence, an open issue arguably existed as to whether NEPA imposed enforceable substantive requirements as well as procedural ones.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has had extensive experience in the use of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to support its long-term planning. This is demonstrated by the fact that DOE has prepared more than 50 programmatic environmental impact statements (PEISs) covering major activities, such as the management of the nuclear weapons complex, the demonstration of new clean coal technologies, DOEwide radioactive waste treatment, storage and disposal plans, and the continued operation of large, multipurpose DOE sites.

The battle for the quality of the American environment is a battle against neglect, mismanagement, poor planning, and a piecemeal approach to problems of natural resources. It is a battle that will have to be fought on every level of government... we must re-examine all existing Federal programs with the aim of coordinating them.... We cannot afford a policy that promises much but delivers little. --President Richard M. Nixon, l

Some extraordinary government officials have used the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a national charter to structure decisions that promote sustainable development and agency governance for protection of the environment. They appreciated that NEPA establishes policy, sets goals (§101), and provides means (§102) and authority (§105) for carrying out the policy. The testimony of Adm. James Watkins, while Secretary of the U.S.

What constitutes a successful National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process? Responses by NEPA supporters would likely include statements such as "a full examination of the relevant issues," "understanding the implications of a proposed action," or "making informed and reasoned decisions." In 2007, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) asked NEPA compliance staff at the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service the same question.