07-98
CHAPTER 11
3. Q. What does the "no action" alternative include? If an agency is under a
court order or legislative command to act, must the EIS address the "no
action" alternative?
A. Section 1502.14(d) requires the alternatives analysis in the EIS to
"include the alternative of no action." There are two distinct
interpretations of "no action" that must be considered, depending on the
nature of the proposal being evaluated. The first situation might involve an
action such as updating a land management plan where ongoing programs
initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue, even as
new plans are developed. In these cases "no action" is "no change" from
current management direction or level of management intensity. To construct an
alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless academic
exercise. Therefore, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in terms of
continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed.
Consequently, projected impacts of alternative management schemes would be
compared in the EIS to those impacts projected for the existing plan. In this
case, alternatives would include management plans of both greater and lesser
intensity, especially greater and lesser levels of resource development.
The second interpretation of "on action" is illustrated in instances involving
federal decisions on proposals for projects. "No action" in such cases would
mean the proposed activity would not take place, and the resulting
environmental effects from taking no action would be compared with the effects
of permitting the proposed activity or an alternative activity to go forward.
Where a choice of "no action" by the agency would result in predictable
actions by others, this consequence of the "no action" alternative should be
included in the analysis. For example, if denial of permission to build a
railroad to a facility would lead to construction of a road and increased
truck traffic, the EIS should analyze this consequence of the "no action"
alternative.
In light of the above, it is difficult to think of a situation where it would
not be appropriate to address a "no action" alternative. Accordingly, the
regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the
agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis
provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of the action alternatives. It is also an example of a
reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the agency that must be
analyzed. Section 1502.14(c). See question 2 above. Inclusion of such an
analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the
Presidents intended by NEPA. Section 1500.1(a).
4a. Q. What is the "agency's preferred alternative"?
A. The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative which the agency
believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving
consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The
concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the
"environmentally preferable alternative," although in some cases one
alternative may be both. See Question 6 below. It is identified so that
agencies and the public can understand the lead agency's orientation.
37
Previous Page
