|2.3 Overview of the NEPA Process Defining the Proposal|
|The Analysis Process | Purpose and Need for Action | Defining the Proposal | Connected, Cumulative, and Similar Actions | NEPA Issues | Internal Scoping | Alternatives | Affected Environment | Impacts | Determining the Appropriate NEPA Pathway | Using Contractors | The Administrative Record | Working with Other Agencies | Emergency Actions|
As explained above (in section 2.1 (3)), you may state your parks proposal quite generally, such as provide an extended experience for visitors at the north rim of the Grand Canyon. This is essentially a restatement of the parks intent to accomplish its stated objectives or purpose. Alternatives would then be a range of options for fulfilling the stated proposal (e.g., lodge, campground, cabins), with no one way identified as preferred over another until the draft NEPA document is completed.
In the above example, perhaps the park examined alternatives for visitor use on the north rim in a GMP/EIS and concluded that provision of an extended visitor experience through overnight accommodations was appropriate. The implementation of the GMP would result in a subsequent planning/NEPA process defining a more specific proposal tiered from the broader approved GMP. In this case, a specific proposal to implement the GMP might be provide extended experience at the north rim with a lodge and the range of alternatives would include a lodge, cabins, tents, and so forth.
Whether a proposal is specific or general, in either case, alternatives should be scrutinized to ensure that environmental damage has been mitigated or eliminated to the greatest extent possible while still achieving your parks purpose in taking action.