Opinion ID: 615771
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NEPA's Alternatives-Analysis Mandate

Text: Under NEPA, an EIS prepared by a federal agency must include a discussion of alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The analysis of alternatives is characterized as `the heart' of the environmental impact statement. Colo. Envtl. Coal. v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1174 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). In the EIS, the agency must [r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives in response to a specif[ied] . . . purpose and need. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.13, 1502.14(a); see also New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 703 (stating that an EIS must `rigorously explore and objectively evaluate' all reasonable alternatives to a proposed action, in order to compare the environmental impacts of all available courses of action (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14)). We review an EIS under a `rule of reason' standard to determine . . . whether the discussion of alternatives in the EIS is sufficient to permit a reasoned choice among the options. Ass'ns Working for Aurora's Residential Env't (AWARE) v. Colo. Dep't of Transp., 153 F.3d 1122, 1130 (10th Cir.1998); see also Colo. Envtl. Coal., 185 F.3d at 1174 (stating that, when evaluating the adequacy of an agency's alternatives analysis, we employ a rule of reason); BioDiversity Conservation Alliance, 608 F.3d at 714 (Our review of a decision not to consider a particular alternative is informed by a rule of reason and practicality.). The reasonableness standard applies both to which alternatives the agency discusses and the extent to which it discusses them. Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1166-67 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing City of Grapevine v. Dep't of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1506 (D.C.Cir. 1994)). We have held that [o]nce an agency appropriately defines the objectives of an action, NEPA does not require agencies to analyze the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . . impractical or ineffective. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030 (quoting All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir.1992)) (internal quotations marks omitted). That is, once an agency establishes the objective of the proposed actionwhich it has considerable discretion to define, Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 439 F.3d at 1195; see also Friends of Se.'s Future v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that agencies have considerable discretion to define the purpose and need of a project, as long as it is reasonable)the agency need not provide a detailed study of alternatives that do not accomplish that purpose or objective, as those alternatives are not reasonable, Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1031; see also Bio-Diversity Conservation Alliance, 608 F.3d at 714-15 (An environmental impact statement must study reasonable alternatives in detail. . . . The Bureau may eliminate alternatives that are `too remote, speculative, impractical, or ineffective,' or that do not meet the purposes and needs of the project. (citation omitted) (quoting New Mexico ex rel. Richardson, 565 F.3d at 708-09 & n. 30)); AWARE, 153 F.3d at 1130 ([A]n agency need not independently evaluate alternatives it determines in good faith to be ineffective as a means to achieving the desired ends.). However, agencies are not permitted to define the objectives [of a proposed action] so narrowly as to preclude a reasonable consideration of alternatives. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030; see also Utah Envtl. Cong. v. Bosworth, 439 F.3d at 1184 (stating that an agency cannot define the project so narrowly that it foreclose[s] a reasonable consideration of alternatives (quoting Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1119 (10th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). For the alternatives selected for detailed analysis in the EIS, the agency must [d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative. . . including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(b). Within the detailed alternatives analysis, agencies are also required to [i]nclude the alternative of no action. Id. § 1502.14(d); accord Forest Guardians, 611 F.3d at 711. For those alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study in the EISfor example, because such alternatives do not further the defined purpose of the proposed actionthe agency must briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1166 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted).