A. Range of alternatives

You must examine a full range of alternatives in the analysis documented in either an EIS or an EA. Those alternatives carried forward for analysis must meet project objectives to a large degree, although not necessarily completely. For instance, in the example in section 2.5, you may choose to add an alternative that analyzes using hotels in the town nearest the north rim of the Grand Canyon, even if your project objective was to provide an extended experience for visitors right at the rim. The alternatives must also be developed with environmental resources (rather than cost, e.g.) as the primary determinant. In other words, they propose different means of accomplishing your park’s goals, while at the same time protecting or minimizing impacts to some or all resources. Keep in mind that at this stage, the range of options you consider may not ultimately be fully analyzed as “reasonable alternatives,” as explained below.

B. Reasonable alternatives

CEQ has defined reasonable alternatives as those that are economically and technically feasible, and that show evidence of common sense (Q2a). Alternatives that could not be implemented if they were chosen, or that do not resolve the need for action and fulfill the stated purpose in taking action to a large degree, should be eliminated as unreasonable before impact analysis begins. Unreasonable alternatives may be those that are unreasonably expensive; that cannot be implemented for technical or logistic reasons; that do not meet park mandates; that are inconsistent with carefully considered, up-to-date park statements of purpose and significance or management objectives; or that have severe environmental impacts — although none of these factors automatically renders an alternative unreasonable. CEQ is also clear that agencies should not pare the list down to only those alternatives that are cheap, easy, or your park’s favorite approach. Rather, feasibility is an initial measure of whether the alternative makes sense and is achievable.

In fact, CEQ has added language cautioning against using even what may seem clear criteria for routinely dismissing alternatives as unreasonable. For instance, if an alternative is any of the following, but otherwise feasible, it must be included in the range of alternatives (Q2b):

• outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded.
• outside the legal jurisdiction of your park.
• undesirable to an outside applicant but reasonable to the park.
• in conflict with a law.
• outside those alternatives provided for by a GMP or other park planning document (particularly if the plan or policy is older or no longer applicable to the issues the park is now facing (1500.1 (a)).

These conditions often are obstacles to implementing an action, because a law may need to be changed, an applicant may need to modify a proposal, or Congress may need to rethink approval or funding. However, CEQ notes that the EA or the EIS analyzing such alternatives may serve as the vehicle for such change.

Alternatives may also be eliminated as unreasonable as the NEPA process progresses. For instance, if initial impact analysis shows that a technically or economically feasible alternative would have profound adverse environmental impacts, it should be eliminated as “environmentally infeasible.”

EAs and EISs should include a section discussing those alternatives that were considered but rejected and briefly explain the reasons for their elimination.

C. No action

The “no action” alternative is developed for two reasons. It is almost always a viable choice in the range of reasonable alternatives, and it sets a baseline of existing impact continued into the future against which to compare impacts of action alternatives. This is important context information in determining the relative magnitude and intensity of impacts (see also, section 4.2(a)). If choosing the true no action alternative (i.e., continuing as is) would violate laws or your park’s own policies, you may want to add a “minimum management” alternative to your range. This should not substitute for the no action alternative, because you may lose valuable information on existing impacts by not evaluating the impacts of ongoing activities.

1. No action for plan modifications — As a rule, for GMPs, assume the no action alternative would continue present management actions. No action then becomes an accurate baseline to compare against action alternatives. As allowed by CEQ (Q3), you may group all existing plans and policies into an alternative to show the impacts of implementing them in the future. This alternative should be considered one of the action alternatives, rather than no action.
2. No action for a project — This would mean the proposed activity would not take place (Q3). Therefore, no action is the continuation of existing conditions and activities without a particular planning context.
3. Impacts of no action — The impacts of no action are the impacts of existing activities or conditions (man-made or natural) projected into the future. If the proposal is to modify a plan, the impacts are the impacts of the unmodified plan. The impacts of no action help readers understand whether the project would degrade or improve conditions in an already degraded environment, or in a relatively pristine one. Analysis of no action must also include the cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

If the proposal is to improve existing conditions, the impacts of no action are particularly important to describe, because they help to define the need for NPS action. If implementing the no action alternative would “result in predictable actions by others,” this impact should be part of the effects of no action (Q3).

Impacts of no action help decision-makers understand the comparative impacts of proposals, as well as the absolute impact. For instance, if your park is analyzing the impact to wildlife of a proposal to add a trail in an area already covered with trails, the impacts to wildlife of no action (e.g., from hikers using the trails) are distinctly different from the impacts if this were the first trail into a wilderness area. Compared with the existing impacts, a new trail in the first case may have less of an impact than in the second.

Impacts of no action also provide an assessment of absolute, or total, impact to a resource. In the example above, the impacts of the proposed trail, when added to those of existing trails (no action), may impose greater impacts on wildlife than a single trail in a wilderness would.

Accurately and completely describing the impacts of existing sources — that is, of continuing actions — is critical to understanding the context, duration and intensity of new impacts. For this reason, a full analysis of no action is required in all NPS EISs and EAs. This is true even when your park is under legislative or other command to take action (Q3).

Further Links:

Yosemite Alternatives, Lessons Learned

D. Environmentally preferred alternative

After the environmental analysis is completed, you must identify the environmentally preferred alternative or alternatives. Descriptions of these alternatives must be included as a separate heading at the end of the alternatives section of the document. The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy expressed in NEPA (Sec. 101 (b)). This includes alternatives that:

• fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.
• ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.
• attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
• preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
• achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.
• enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Simply put, “this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources” (Q6a). In the NPS, the No Action alternative may also be considered in identifying the environmentally preferred alternative.

Through identification of the environmentally preferable alternative, the NPS decision-makers and the public are clearly faced with the relative merits of choices and must clearly state through the decision-making process the values and policies used in reaching final decisions.

E. Consistency with sections 101 and 102(1) of NEPA

As required under CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1502.2(d), NEPA documents must include a section stating how each alternative analyzed in detail would or would not achieve the requirements of sections 101 and 102(1) of NEPA and other environmental laws and policies. In the park service, this requirement is met by 1) disclosing how each alternative, one of which is identified as the environmentally preferred, meets the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of NEPA (see above); and 2) any inconsistencies between the alternatives analyzed in detail and other environmental laws and policies.

Further Links:

National Environmental Policy Act sections 101 and 102 (1)

NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions

Selection of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Supplemental Alternatives Information

<<Return to previous section

Continue to next section>>

Return to top of page.