|
<br />205,,1
<br />
<br />(4) Alternatives to the proposed.
<br />tiOI;., including, where rele\"ant, those not
<br />within the existing authority of the re4
<br />sponsible agei1r~:. \Section 102(2) (D) of
<br />t.he Act requires the responslule agency
<br />to "study. develop. cnd describe appro-
<br />priate alternaUrcs to recommenc]ed
<br />courses of action in any proposal which
<br />involves unrcso!\"ed conflicts concerning
<br />nlternati\'e uses of available resources").
<br />A rigorous exploration and objective
<br />evaluation of the environmental impacts
<br />of aU reasonable altern::ttive actions, par.
<br />tlcularly those that. might enhance en-
<br />virorunentnJ qtlalitr or ayoid some or l'l.ll
<br />of the adverse environmental effects, is
<br />essential. Sufficient anal...sis of such al-
<br />ternatives and their environmentnl bene.
<br />fits, costs and risks should accompany
<br />the proposed action through the agency
<br />review process in order not to foreclose
<br />prematurely options which might el1~
<br />hance environmental Quality or have less
<br />detrimental effects. Examplrs of such al-
<br />ternatives include: _ the alternaU\'e of
<br />taking no ac.tion or of llost-poning action
<br />pending further study: alt.ernatives re-
<br />quiring actions of a significantly dIffer-
<br />ent nature which t\'ould pro\'ide similar
<br />benefit.s wIth different cm-ironmental im-
<br />par.l.<;. (e.g., nor~st.ructural altCl1.lHt.i\'es to
<br />flood control program:..;, or mass transit
<br />nltcrnati\'~s to highwi"\Y construction);
<br />altenUltives related to different des.igns
<br />or details of the proposed act.ion which.
<br />would present dif!rrent environmental
<br />Impacts (e.g., cooling ponds vs. cooling
<br />towers for a power plant or altematives
<br />that ",ill signi!icantly conserve energy';
<br />alternath'e measures to prmide for com-
<br />pensat.ion of fish and wildlife losses, in-
<br />cludin.g the acquiSition or l3.nd, water5.
<br />and interests therein. In each case, the
<br />analysis ShOl1ld be sufficiently detailed to
<br />reveal the ae:ency's comparative cvulua-
<br />tion of the environmental benefit.s. co.;ls
<br />and risks cf the proposed action and each
<br />reasonable alternative. \Vh~re an exi~t-
<br />ing imnact statement already contains
<br />such an analysis, its treatment of alter-
<br />natives may be incorporated provided
<br />that such treatment is current and rele-
<br />vant to the preci~e purpose of the pro-
<br />pooed action.
<br />(5.) Any probable adverse environmen-
<br />tal etIects which cannot be 8.voided (such
<br />as water or ail' POllutIOll, undesirable
<br />land use patterns. damage to life sYS-
<br />tems. urban congestion, threats to health
<br />or other consequences adverse to the en-
<br />vironmental goals set out in section 101
<br />(b) of the Act). This should be a brief
<br />section summarizing in one place those
<br />effects disCu.:;sed in paragraph ta) (3) of
<br />this section that are adverse and Ull-
<br />avoidable undel' the proposed action. In~
<br />cluded (or purposes of contrast should
<br />be a clear statement of how other avoId-
<br />able ad\'erse effects discussed in para-
<br />graph (eJ (2) of this section will be miti-
<br />gated,
<br />(6) The relationship betweE'n local
<br />short-term uses or man's em'il'onment
<br />and tJu~ maintenance and enhancement
<br />of long-term producti\'ity. This section
<br />should contaln 3. brief discussion of the
<br />extent to which the proposed action in-
<br />volves tradeofrs between short-term en~
<br />
<br />RULES AND REGULATIONS
<br />
<br />vironmentnl gains at the expense of lon~- .t~ment, care should be taken to en-
<br />tenn losses, or vjCf' versa.. and a discus~ sure that the statement remaIns an E'S-
<br />.::;ion of the extent to which the proposed sentially self-contained instrument, cap-
<br />action rorf'c~oses future options. In this abl~ of being understood by the reader
<br />context short-term and lO:1:g-term do not \'\ithout the need for undue cross
<br />refer to anr fixed timc pCliods, but reference.
<br />shoulu be viewed in terms of the en'..iron- (C) Eacll environmental statement
<br />mentallY significant consequences of the shoUld be prepared In accordance \dth
<br />proposed action. the precept in section 1021.2) (A) of the
<br />i7) Any irreversible and irretrie\'able Act t!1El.t all agencies of the Federal Gov-
<br />commitments of resources that would be ernment "utilizc a systematic, interdis-
<br />involved In the proposed actJOI1 should it cipIinary approach which 'will in~llt'e the
<br />be implemented. This require.:; the inte!;1"ated use of the natural and social
<br />agency to identify from. its survey of un- science~ and the environmental design
<br />avoidable impacts in paragraph (a) (5) arts in planning and deci.5ionm~kjng
<br />of this sectioll the extent to which the which may have an impact on man's
<br />action in-cv'ersibly curtails the range of enVironment." Agencies should attempt
<br />potrntial uses of the ennronment. Agen- to ha.ve relevant disciplines represented
<br />cies should avoid construing the term on tlleir own staffs: where this is 110t fea-
<br />"resources" to Inean only the labor and sible t11ej' should make nppropl'iate use
<br />matel'ials devoted to an action. "Re- of relevant Federal. State, and local
<br />sources" a.lso mrans the l1l).tural and cul~ agencies or the profE'ssional services of
<br />tural resources committed to loss or dc- wliversities and outside consultflnt.s. The
<br />structlon by the action. interdiSCiplinary a!Jpro~ch should not be
<br />(B, An indication of what othcr in- limited to the prcparatjon of the en-
<br />terests and considerations of Federal vironmcntaI impact stCl.tement, but
<br />lJolicy are thou!;ht to offset the adverse should also be used in the early plan~
<br />environmrlltal efIects of the proposed ning stag-es of the proposed action. Early
<br />action identiflcd pursuant to po.raf;:raphs application of such nn :Jpproach should
<br />(a) (3) and (5) of this section. The state- hell) assw'e a .systematic evaluation ~f
<br />ment should also indicate the extent to rea~onable alternative courses of action
<br />which thesc stated counten'ailing bene- and their potential social, economi:::, and
<br />fits could be realized by following rea- environmental consequences.
<br />sonable 3lt.ern~t-ives to the proposcd ac- (d) Appendix I prescribes the form of
<br />tion (as identificd in pal'agl'a\.lh (a) (4) the SU1l.1lHaij.' sheet \':llIch should aCCufil-
<br />of this section) that would ayoid some or pany each draft and final envirolUnental
<br />all of the ad\'€l'se envinmmentnl effecls. statement,
<br />In this connection, agencies that prepare
<br />cost-benefit analyses of proposed actions
<br />should attach such analyses, or swn-
<br />maries thereof, to the environmental im-
<br />pact statement. and should clearly indi-
<br />cate the extent to which environmental
<br />costs hav(' not been refl.eclect in such
<br />analyses.
<br />tb) In developing the above points
<br />agencies should make every effort to con- .
<br />vey the required information succinctly
<br />in a form easily Wlderstood. bDth by
<br />members of the public and by public de-
<br />cisionmakers. giving attention to the
<br />substance of the information conveyed
<br />rather than to the particular form, or
<br />length, or detail of the statement. Each
<br />of the above points, for example, need
<br />not always occujJY a distinct section of
<br />the statement if it is otherwise ade-
<br />quately co\'ered in discussing the impact
<br />of tile proposed action and Us alterna-
<br />Uyes-whit;h items should normallv be
<br />the focus of the statement. Draft state-
<br />ments should indicate at appropriate
<br />points in the text any underlying stud-
<br />ies, reports, and other informa tion ob-
<br />tained and considered by the agency in
<br />preparing the statement including any
<br />cost-benefit analyses prepared by the
<br />agency. and relJorts of consulting ageIl~
<br />cies under the Fjsh nnd Wildlife Co-
<br />ordination Act. 16 U.S:C. 661 et seq., and
<br />the National Historic Preservat.ion Act
<br />of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., where such
<br />consUltation has tak.en place. In the case
<br />of documents not likely to be easiJy ac-
<br />cessible (stich as internal 5tudies or re-
<br />ports). the agency should indicate how
<br />such illformaU"'n may be obtained. If
<br />such tnfonnation J.s attached to the
<br />
<br />~ 1::>OU.9 ne,,'iL'w of (lrufl f"1I,,'irolllll('lIlal
<br />"',JlrJJ)('JlI... h~' F('dc-,.:tl. F('(lcroll.SIIIIC-,
<br />SIDIf'. nnd IOl"ul UI,:C'IIl:it"l> anti hy the
<br />publiC'.
<br />
<br />(a) Federal agcncy rcvkw. q) Tn
<br />gcneral. A Federal agency cOllsidrring
<br />an action requu1ng an environmental
<br />statement should consult with. an,: ion
<br />the b3.sis of a dmft environmental state-
<br />ment for \vhich the agency take:> re-
<br />sponsibility) obtain the comment on the
<br />environmental impact of the action of
<br />Federal and Federal-State agencies with
<br />jurisdiction by law or special experti8~
<br />with respect to any environmental irn~
<br />pact involved. These Federal and Fed-
<br />eral-State agencies and their relenmt
<br />areas of expertise include those identi-
<br />fied in Appendices II and III to these
<br />guidelines. It is recommended that the
<br />listed departments and agencies estab-
<br />lish contact points, which may be re-
<br />gional offices, for providing comments on
<br />the em.ironmental statements. The re-
<br />Quirement in section 102(2) (e) to ob-
<br />tain comment from Federnl agencies
<br />ha\'ing jurisdiction or special expertise
<br />is in addition to any specific statutory
<br />obligation of any Federal agenc,," to co-
<br />ordinate or consult with any otl;er Fed-
<br />eral 01' State agency. Agencies should,
<br />for example, be alert to con~ult.ation re-
<br />qUirements of the Fish. and Wiidlife Co-
<br />ordmaUon Act, 16 U.S.C. 6(H ct seQ., and
<br />the National Historic Preservation Act
<br />of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. To the ex-
<br />tent possible. state;nents or findings
<br />concell1ing environmental impact re~
<br />quired b~. other st-atutes, SUCll as section
<br />4(fJ of the Department of Transporta~
<br />Lion Act of 1066, 49 U.S.C. 1653(f). or.
<br />
<br />0538
<br />
<br />fEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 147-WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 1. 1973
<br />
<br />
|