Summary of the National Environmental Policy Act and Implementing Regulations - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 19

under which [humans] and nature can exist in productive harmony…. ” Section 101
provides the background and specifics on productive harmony which are to:

r “…fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the
environment for succeeding generations.”
r “…assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and estheti-
cally and culturally pleasing surroundings.”
r “…preserve important [resources].”

Section 101 describing the policy also makes it clear that (1) NEPA is a com-
promise and (2) although it gives weight to environmental concerns where
none had previously existed, environmental protection does not take prece-
dence over other issues. This is evident in statements such as:

r “…maintain where ever possible an environment which supports
…. a variety of individual choice[s].”
r “…attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
without degradation, risk to health or safety or other undesirable
and unintended consequences.”
r “…fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and
future generations of Americans.”

Thus the policy statement of the Act sets forth goals and desires, but appro-
priately for a policy statement, it is not specific and does not indicate how the
goals will be achieved. That is left to other sections of the Act, implementing
regulations, trial and error by agencies, and litigation.

2.2.3 Basic NEPA Requirements

A Congressional national environmental policy statement coupled with a
mandate for all federal agencies to implement the policy alone would have
produced little, if any, change in how agencies carried out their activities.
The result would have produced at best only limited environmental protec-
tion and enhancement. In practice, each government agency would have
remained narrowly focused on its primary mission and there would have
been little or no coordination among agencies with regard to environmental
issues and preservation. For example, NASA would have been preoccupied
with space exploration and would have no incentive to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries when they selected
and constructed launch sites and other facilities adjacent to sensitive marine
habitats or in proximity to endangered species breeding areas.
In order to go beyond a “feel good” policy statement to actually “create
and maintain conditions under which [humans] and nature can exist in
productive harmony” and achieve actual environmental protection, forcing