Microalternatives – A better way of thinking about alternatives in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) considers a comparison of alternatives to be the heart of any environmental impact statement (EIS). However, a question arises as to whether the real value of the alternatives analysis lies in comparing the handful of alternatives actually featured in most EISs. The reality of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) practice suggests that the true value of NEPA may not lie in the formal comparison of the alternatives typically designated in the text of most EISs. Instead, most of the value may actually lie in a multitude of undocumented considerations that informally precede the actual designation of alternatives for formal analysis in the EIS text. One may think of the alternatives actually featured in an EIS as Macroalternatives, while terming the hundreds of possible planning decisions in developing and identifying these formal alternatives as Microalternatives. Few EISs document or formally present these potentially innumerable Microalternatives; in fact, a complete accounting may not even be possible. But the decisions made, both consciously and subconsciously, among possible Microalternatives may be where the greatest potential lies within NEPA practice to actually reduce environmental impacts. The discussion presented herein illustrates the concept of Microalternatives spatially, using simplistic diagrams. Consider a decision by a scientist or engineer to move a road or transmission line around rather than through a wetland while laying out an alternative project design for an alternative to be evaluated in an EIS. The scientist or engineer has reached a decision point, albeit an informal one. Various possible routes through or around the wetland can be thought of as Microalternatives. Conceptually, the various routes can be thought of as sub-alternatives, alternatives for one element (one road or transmission line) of the overall project design presented as an alternative (Macroalternative) in the EIS. Similar scenarios might include decisions among possible layouts for a parking lot to avoid or minimize encroachment into forest or archaeological sites, decisions among pond layouts to retain sediment carried in runoff, or decisions among manufacturing technologies to reduce emissions or noise. In many cases, these numerous little decision points are never formally documented as “alternatives” in the EIS, which instead typically focuses on a formal decision among overall project-design alternatives made by a senior decision-maker at the conclusion of the environmental review process. But it is the multitude of earlier little decision points where the greatest potential lies for actually avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. This article describes the potential importance of Microalternatives in the effective implementation of NEPA. It emphasizes the importance of documenting a consideration of Microalternatives in the alternatives analysis of an EIS or EA (at least to the extent practicable), thereby enhancing the document’s value as an environmental planning tool for reducing adverse impacts. With an ever-increasing need to justify the value of effort and cost expended on NEPA and related environmental planning, the time for publicizing the hitherto hidden value of Microalternatives is now.