Statutory standards for managing federal lands have not been adequately implemented by the land management agencies. The result is that environmental values are often severely damaged or completely overlooked. This Article examines the principal statutory management concept—multiple use—especially as it is applied by the Forest Service through the Multiple Use Act, and explores the few judicial attempts to control the multiple use concept. After providing a background by discussing the appropriate standard for judicial review of informal administrative decisions, the Article examines the 1970 Dorothy Thomas case and the more recent Tongass Forest litigation. The Ninth Circuit's Tongass Forest decision is given special attention because it reasserts judicial control over the Forest Service's discretion to weigh the various statutory uses under the Multiple Use Act. In addition, the Article suggests that vigorous enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act by the land management agencies, although not yet a reality, has the potential for providing much of the environmental protection presently lacking in the agencies' procedures. The Article concludes by stating that NEPA and the Ninth Circuit Tongass decision provide a clear mandate for the land agencies to consider the four non-timber uses equally with timber use under the Multiple Use Act and to manage the public lands to maximize public benefits.