Abstract:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into United States Law in 1969 for
the purpose of establishing the requirement for adequate environmental analysis of projects
occurring on Federal lands or via the utilization of Federal funds. Key to this process is the
identification and analysis of viable and feasible alternatives to a proposed action, to include the
“No Action Alternative,” often utilized as the baseline against which the potential effects of
alternatives are compared (32 CFR 651.7). Screening criteria utilized to develop a proposed
action and its alternatives must be presented in clear and concise terms, in order to ensure the
public and regulatory community understands the alternative development process. The
document must also clearly explain why some alternatives are carried forward for detailed
review and analysis, while others are eliminated from further review. Recent litigation has
highlighted the significance of the failure to either adequately identify alternatives to a proposed
action or to pay due attention to the No Action Alternative. Investigation and discussion of the
alternative development and analysis process, as illustrated in several recent court cases, will be
the focus of this paper.
