Environmental Compliance

"Reasonable" Alternatives

The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations require the agency to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." The determination of alternatives must include a "no action" alternative. This alternative evaluates the environmental impacts of no Federal action by the agency to meet the perceived need. Other reasonable alternatives may include the alternative preferred by the agency (40 CFR •1502.14). This alternative is determined by the agency, which may also consider nonenvironmental objectives in its decision. Through the early and open process of scoping, the public has an opportunity to provide additional alternatives for the agency's consideration (40 CFR • 1501.7). Scoping responses and comments can provide sufficient information to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate any reasonable alternatives not initially considered by the agency.

The definition of a "reasonable" alternative depends upon the objective of the program being analyzed. If the alternative suggested by a commenter is not considered reasonable, the agency must explain why this alternative is not being considered in an environmental document (CEQ's 40 Questions). The ideal alternative meets the objectives or goal of a program action in a manner that is environmentally safe, cost effective, and logistically sound. Each action alternative must meet the objectives to some degree while minimizing or avoiding impacts on affected resources. The complete analysis of the "no action" alternative provides a baseline for analysis of the action alternatives. The potential environmental impacts for action alternatives actually may be less severe than the "no action" alternative, particularly for major pests like the Mediterranean fruit fly and gypsy moth.

The complexity of the proposal affects the range of alternatives. For example, a small program (treatment of 1 to 5 infested acres) to eradicate an introduced weed species could perhaps include removal and destruction of all the weed plants from the infested area by program personnel as a reasonable alternative. This alternative might not be reasonable for a weed infesting several thousand acres because the logistics of providing enough personnel to completely and efficiently remove the weeds from the large infested area could be unworkable.

Mitigations of the potential adverse impacts of an alternative may be applied to make that alternative reasonable and more acceptable to the program. For example, application of protective buffers or nontreatment areas around farm ponds may make a program acceptable in areas where catfish farming is an important source of income.