| OCR Text |
Show 401 U.S. 405 CITIZENS TO PRESERVE OVERTON PARK, INC. v. VOLPE 817 Cite ns 1)1 S.Ct.SH (15)71) (a) There is no indication here that Congress sought to limit or prohibit judicial review. P. 820. (b) The exemption for action "committed to agency discretion" does not apply as the Secretary does have "law to apply," rather than wide-ranging discretion. Pp. 820-821. 2. Although under § 706 of the Act de novo review is not required here and the Secretary's approval of the route need not meet the substantial-evidence test, the reviewing court must conduct a substantial inquiry, and determine whether the Secretary acted within the scope of his authority, whether his decision was within the small range of available choices, and whether he could have reasonably believed that there were no feasible alternatives. The court must find that the actual choice was not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," and that the Secretary followed the necessary procedural requirements. Pp. 822-823. 3. Formal findings by the Secretary were not required in this case. Pp. 824-825. (a) The relevant statutes do not require formal findings, and there is no ambiguity in the Secretary's action. P. 824. (b) Although a regulation requiring formal findings was issued after the Secretary had approved the route, a remand to him is not necessary as there is an administrative record facilitating I. See, c. g., The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S. C. $ 4321 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. V); Environmental Education Act, <S4 Stat. 1312, 20 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1970 ed.): Air Quality Act of 1967, SI Stat. 485. 42 U.S.C. § 1857 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. V); Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 114, 42 U.S. C. §§ 4371-4374 (1970 ed.). 2. "It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recrea- 91 S.Ct.-52 full and prompt review of the Secretary's action. Pp. 824-825. 4. The case is remanded to the District Court for plenary review of the Secretary's decision. P. 825. (a) The lower courts' review was based on litigation affidavits, which are not the whole record and are in inadequate basis for review. P. 825. (b) In view of the lack of formal findings, the court may require the administrative officials who participated in the decision to give testimony explaining their action or require the Secretary to make formal findings. Pp. 825-826. 432 F.2d 1307, reversed and remanded. _|John W. Vardaman, Jr., Washington, {403 D. C, for petitioners. Sol. Gen. Erwln N. Griswold, for respondent, Secretary of Transportation. | J . Alan Hanover, Memphis, Tenn., }404 for respondent, Charles W. Speight, Commissioner Tennessee Dept. of Highways. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice MARSHALL, announced by Mr. Justice STEWART. The growing public concern about the quality of our natural environment has prompted Congress in recent years to enact legislation1 designed to curb the accelerating destruction of our country's natural beauty. We are concerned in this case with § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, 2 and § 18(a) ofjthe Federal-AidJ405 tion lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, and with the States in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed. After August 23, 1968, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and |
