07-98
CHAPTER 11
or not "significant") must be considered, and mitigation measures must be
CHAPTER 11 developed where it is feasible to do so. Sections 1502.14(f),
1502.16(h), 1508.14.
19b. Q. How should an EIS treat the subject of available mitigation measures
that are (1) outside the jurisdiction of the lead or cooperating agencies, or
(2) unlikely to be adopted or enforced by the responsible agency?
A. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project
are to be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead
agency or the cooperating agencies, and thus would not be committed as part of
the RODs of these agencies. Section 1502.16(h), 1505.2(c). This will serve to
alert agencies or officials who can implement these extra measures, and will
encourage them to do so. Because the EIS is the most comprehensive
environmental document, it is an ideal vehicle in which to layout not only the
full range of environmental impacts but also the full spectrum of appropriate
mitigation. However, to ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action
are fairly assessed, the probability of the mitigation measures being
implemented must also be discussed. Thus the EIS and the Record of Decision
should indicate the likelihood that such measures will be adopted or enforced
by the responsible agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2. If there is a
history of non-enforcement or opposition to such measures, the EIS and Record
of Decision should acknowledge such opposition or non-enforcement. If the
necessary mitigation measures will not be ready for a long period of time,
this fact, of course, should also be recognized.
20a. Q. When must a worst case analysis be included in an EIS?
A. If there are gaps in relevant information or scientific uncertainty
pertaining to an agency's evaluation of significant adverse impacts on the
human environment, an agency must make clear that such information is lacking
or that the uncertainty exists. An agency must include a worst case analysis
of the potential impacts of the proposal and an indication of the probability
or improbability of their occurrence if (a) the information relevant to
adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the
overall costs of obtaining the information are exorbitant, or (b) the
information relevant to adverse impacts is important to the decision and the
means to obtain it are not known. NEPA requires that impact statements, at a
minimum, contain information to alert the public and Congress to all known
possible environmental consequences of agency action. Thus, one of the federal
government's most important obligations is to present to the fullest extent
possible the spectrum of consequences that may result from agency decisions,
and the details of their potential consequences for the human environment.
20b. Q. What is the purpose of a worst case analysis? How is it formulated and
what is the scope of the analysis?
A. The purpose of the analysis is to carry out NEPA's mandate for agency
decisions, and to cause agencies to consider those potential consequences when
acting on the basis of scientific uncertainties or gaps in available
information. The analysis is formulated on the full disclosure to the public
of the potential consequences of basis of available information, using
reasonable projections of the worst possible consequences of a proposed
action. For example, if there are scientific uncertainty and gaps in the
47
Previous Page
