[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 32, Volume 6]
[Revised as of July 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 32CFR989.8]

[Page 246]
 
                        TITLE 32-NATIONAL DEFENSE
 
                CHAPTER VII--DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
 
PART 989_ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)--Table of Contents
 
Sec. 989.8  Analysis of alternatives.

    (a) The Air Force must analyze reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action and the ``no action'' alternative in all EAs and EISs, 
as fully as the proposed action alternative.
    (b) ``Reasonable'' alternatives are those that meet the underlying 
purpose and need for the proposed action and that would cause a 
reasonable person to inquire further before choosing a particular course 
of action. Reasonable alternatives are not limited to those directly 
within the power of the Air Force to implement. They may involve another 
government agency or military service to assist in the project or even 
to become the lead agency. The Air Force must also consider reasonable 
alternatives raised during the scoping process (see Sec. 989.18) or 
suggested by others, as well as combinations of alternatives. The Air 
Force need not analyze highly speculative alternatives, such as those 
requiring a major, unlikely change in law or governmental policy. If the 
Air Force identifies a large number of reasonable alternatives, it may 
limit alternatives selected for detailed environmental analysis to a 
reasonable range or to a reasonable number of examples covering the full 
spectrum of alternatives.
    (c) The Air Force may expressly eliminate alternatives from detailed 
analysis, based on reasonable selection standards (for example, 
operational, technical, or environmental standards suitable to a 
particular project). In consultation with the EPF, the appropriate Air 
Force organization may develop written selection standards to firmly 
establish what is a ``reasonable'' alternative for a particular project, 
but they must not so narrowly define these standards that they 
unnecessarily limit consideration to the proposal initially favored by 
proponents. This discussion of reasonable alternatives applies equally 
to EAs and EISs.
    (d) Except in those rare instances where excused by law, the Air 
Force must always consider and assess the environmental impacts of the 
``no action'' alternative. ``No action'' may mean either that current 
management practice will not change or that the proposed action will not 
take place. If no action would result in other predictable actions, 
those actions should be discussed within the no action alternative 
section. The discussion of the no action alternative and the other 
alternatives should be comparable in detail to that of the proposed 
action.