07-98
4b. Q. Does the "preferred alternative" have to be identified in the Draft EIS
and the Final EIS or just in the Final EIS?
CHAPTER 11
A. Section 1502.14(e) requires the section of the EIS on alternatives to
"identify the agency's preferred alternative if one or more exists, in the
draft statement, and identify such alternative in the final statement...."
This means that if the agency has a preferred alternative at the Draft EIS
stage, that alternative must be labeled or identified as such in the Draft
EIS. If the responsible federal official in fact has no preferred alternative
at the Draft EIS stage, a preferred alternative need not be identified there.
By the time the Final EIS is filed, Section 1502.14(e) presumes the existence
of a preferred alternative and requires its identification in the Final EIS
"unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference."
4c. Q. Who recommends or determines the "preferred alternative?"
A. The lead agency's official with line responsibility for preparing the EIS
and assuring its adequacy is responsible for identifying the agency's
preferred alternative(s). The NEPA regulations do not dictate which official
in an agency shall be responsible for preparation of EISs, but agencies can
identify this official in their implementing procedures, pursuant to Section
1507.3. Even though the agency's preferred alternative is identified by the
EIS preparer in the EIS, the statement must be objectively prepared and not
slanted to support the choice of the agency's preferred alternative over the
other reasonable and feasible alternatives.
5a. Q. Is the "proposed action" the same thing as the "preferred alternative"?
A. The "proposed action" may be, but is not necessarily, the agency's
"preferred alternative." The proposed action may be a proposal in its initial
form before undergoing analysis in the EIS process. If the proposed action is
internally generated, such as preparing a land management plan, the proposed
action might end up as the agency's preferred alternative. On the other hand
the proposed action may be granting an application to a non-federal entity for
a permit. The agency may or may not have a "preferred alternative" at the
Draft EIS stage (see Question 4 above). In that case the agency may decide at
the Final EIS stage, on the basis of the Draft EIS and the public and agency
comments, that an alternative other than the proposed action is the agency's
"preferred alternative.
5b. Q. Is the analysis of the "proposed action" in an EIS to be treated
differently from the analysis of alternatives?
A. The degree of analysis devoted to each alternative in the EIS is to be
substantially similar to that devoted to the "proposed action." Section
1502.14 is titled "Alternatives including the proposed action" to reflect such
comparable treatment. Section 1502.14(b) specifically requires "substantial
treatment" in the EIS of each alternative including the proposed action. This
regulation does not dictate an amount of information to be provided, but
rather, prescribes a level of treatment, which may in turn require varying
amounts of information, to enable a reviewer to evaluate and compare
alternatives.
6a. Q. What is the meaning of the term "environmentally preferable
alternative" as used in the regulations with reference to Records of Decision?
How is the term "environment" used in the phrase?
38
Previous Page
