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.

I.The BP Lake Michigan Pollution Fight

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contains a broad mandate to apply the policies of §101 on an international plane. I explored these concepts initially on assignment as a member of the Legal Advisory Committee to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 1969-1971, and published the analysis in 1974, after that Committee wound up its business.

Twice in recent years, the U.S. Forest Service has decided it could and should stop conducting environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the long-range management plans it periodically must produce for individual national forests (or in some cases groups of forests). This is, at the very least, counterintuitive. These plans govern how the environment is shaped over the course of a decade or more, on many millions of acres of public land. What could be more deserving of plenary environmental review?

I. Foresight as a Foundation for Security

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has often been called our nation's environmental Magna Carta. NEPA's structure and language are constitutional in character. Widely recognized as the world's first comprehensive statement of environmental policy, NEPA became a model for environmental policy and law around the globe.

In this new age of environmental law, scholars, advocates, policy makers, journalists, and other interested members of the public can gain access to and harness information about our environment through federal right-to-know laws, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The question is whether these statutes ensure that environmental information is made available to the public in a timely and dependable way.

Prof. David Vladeck's article, Information Access--Surveying the Current Legal Landscape of Federal Right-toKnow Laws, provides a powerful case for strengthening existing environmental right-to-know laws such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other enabling statues that require firms to report--and the government to provide public access to--environmental information. He focuses on two examples where almost by default, due to procedural burdens and the ability to claim proprietary business information, the government can withhold and/or delay release of data.