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