d
dos
In some instances environmental costs
may outweigh economic and technical
benefits and in other instances they
may not.
But NEPA mandates a rather
finely tuned and “systenatic" balancing
Sow
analysis in each instance.
To insure that the balancing analysis is
carried out and given full effect, Section 102(2)(C) requires that. responsible
officials of all agencies prepare a
.
“detailed statement" covering the impact
.
of particular actions on the environment,
the environmental costs which might be
avoided, and alternative measures which
might alter the cost benefit equation.
~
2 ERC at_1781-82.
renner a aes =
= —
-
— -.5-
-
=
os
-
~
=
-
"Similarly, in*ydtural Resources ‘Desfensest
Council Veo
>,2Moxton, the’ Gourk- observed|that
ee ee ee
The impact statement provides a basis for
(a)
evaluation of the benefits of the
proposed project in light of its environmental risks, and (b) comparison of the
net balance for the proposed project with
the environmental risk presented by alter-
native courses of action.
3 ERC at 1561. -
°
=
These judicial comments do not, however, detract
from the primary purpose of the 102 statement: the
assessment of the environmental effects of possible
actions.
NEPA was enacted out of a concern that
environmental considerations were not being fully
canvassed before action, and the purpose of Sec-~
tion 102(2}(C) is primarily to require a "detailed
statement" of environmental effects.
Where an.
agency's proposal entails adverse environmental
ot
fo.
cr]
i?
consequences, the 102 statement must identify the
countervailing interests that would support a