07-98
CHAPTER 11
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE NEPA REGULATIONS (1981)
References throughout the document are to the Council on Environmental
Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.
la. Q. What is meant by "range of alternatives" as referred to in Sec
1505.1(e) of NEPA?
A. The phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in
environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must
be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other
alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion
of the reasons for eliminating them, Section 1502.14. A decision maker must
not consider alternatives beyond the range of alternatives discussed in the
relevant environmental documents. Moreover, a decision maker must, in fact,
consider all the alternatives discussed in an EIS. Section 1505.1(e).
lb. Q. How many alternatives have to be discussed when there is an infinite
number of possible alternatives?
A. For some proposals, there may exist a very large or even an infinite number
of possible reasonable alternatives. For example, a proposal to designate
wilderness areas within a National Forest could be said to involve an infinite
number of alternatives from 0 to 100 percent of the forest. When there are
potentially a very large number of alternatives, only a reasonable number of
examples, covering the full spectrum of alternatives, must be analyzed and
compared in the EIS. An appropriate series of alternatives might include
dedicating 0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, or 100 percent of the Forest to wilderness.
What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of
the proposal and the facts in each case.
2a. Q. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or
other federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss
alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or can it be
limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant?
A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to
the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the
emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or
applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a particular alternative.
Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the
technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply
desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.
2b. Q. Must the EIS analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or
capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized?
A. An alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency
must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A potential conflict
with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative
unreasonable, although such conflicts must be considered. Section 1506.2(d).
Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or
funded must still be evaluated in the EIS if they are reasonable, because the
35
Previous Page
