In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed by President Richard Nixon and remains the law today. NEPA requires that any Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) publicly consider alternatives to any project (like a forest plan) that a federal agency (like the Forest Service) might cause significant environmental impacts. (e.g., mining, grazing, logging, recreation).
Current (2022) regulations implementing NEPA state:
The alternatives section should present the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives in comparative form based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the affected environment (§ 1502.15) and the environmental consequences (§ 1502.16). In this section, agencies shall:
Evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and, for alternatives that the agency eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their elimination.
Discuss each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.
Photographer Tim Peterson
Generally, the federal agency (in this case the Manti-La Sal NF, or MLNF) that is undertaking an EIS (in this case for an entire 10-15 year forest plan) develops alternatives out of comments provided by the public (including adjacent counties, other agencies, businesses, scientists, citizens) during a scoping period. But in fact, agencies and non-governmental organizations and even individuals can submit comprehensive alternatives that parallel – and differ from - the agency alternatives. If an alternative is reasonable and different from the agency’s alternative(s), it can be expected to be published and compared to agency alternatives in the Draft and Final EIS. This has happened many times before. But not in the August 2023 MLNF Draft EIS.
Without the Conservation Alternative appearing in the Draft EIS, the public cannot comment on which pieces of which alternatives they would like to see in the final forest plan.
Because the MLNF proposed forest plan (“Alternative B”) is lacking any alternative options for more than 90% of its provisions (Goals, Desired Conditions, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines), the MLNF needs to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS which does have real alternatives, including an alternative that emphasizes conservation over extraction. So far, the MLNF has not agreed to do so, despite the legal mandate to present alternatives.
