i bs decision to go ahead. This does not mean that the statement may be used as a promotional docu- ment in favor of the proposal, at the expense of a thorough and rigorous analysis of environmental In most cases it mat’ be impossible and ‘rists. unnecessary to discuss the countervailing interests The in the same detail as environmental factors. court in the Morton case observed that "the con- sideration of pertinent alternatives requires a weighing of numerous matters, such as economics, foreign relations [and] national security ...." 3 ERC at 1561. A detailed discussion of each of these subjects could require as much space as the environmental analysis itself, destroying the focus of the 102 statement and undercutting the purpose of What is necessary is a succinct explanation NEPA. of the factors to be balanced in reaching a. decision, | ..thus alerting. the agency. decisionmaker, as. Well--AS_-as * _ Jt. _ we. (2S=the President;Congress,and_‘thespubtic| to-“fhe:nature oo -of the” intereststhatare.beingserved at the: expense= - of environmental’values. ~~ ’ ' - . . . " Wherever adverse enviRecommendation #2: ronmental effects are found to be involved in the proposed action, the impact state- ment should indicate what other interests and considerations. of Federal policymight .. be foundto justify those effects. ‘The statement should also indicate the extent to which these stated countervailing ‘benefits could be realized by following reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects. In this connection, agencies that prepare cost-benefit analyses of proposed actions should attach such analyses to the environmental impact statement. i