Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant.
Reasonable alternatives means the use of a substitute upland site having similar material or, where substitute sites are unavailable, modifying the operation plan or reclamation plan to minimize impacts to or stabilize the streambed and banks where the objectives of the operator can still be substantially met.
Reasonable alternatives means tactics and methods used by a law
Examples of Reasonable alternatives in a sentence
Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant.
Reasonable alternatives to a surety bond must: • Designate the obligee (depending on State law, the resident individually or in aggregate, or the State on behalf of each resident) who can collect in case of a loss; • Specify that the obligee may collect due to any failure by the facility, whether by commission, bankruptcy, or omission, to hold, safeguard, manage, and account for the residents’ funds; and • Be managed by a third party unrelated in any way to the facility or its management.
Reasonable alternatives will be analyzed, reduced to writing and presented to the Union at the meeting provided for between the agency and the union at Section 5.2 prior to laying off any front line bargaining unit employee(s).
Reasonable alternatives outside the jurisdiction of NRCS must also be developed.
The lead agency or agencies must, “objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.”31 Reasonable alternatives are those that substantially meet the agency’s purpose and need.
More Definitions of Reasonable alternatives
Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.
Reasonable alternatives meansthose alternatives that meet the purpose and need statement. In some cases, where there is a consensus among all interested parties regarding the proposed action, other alternatives are not necessary. (See CEQ Guidance Memo, ‘‘Emergency Actions and NEPA,’’ dated September 8, 2005, and Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA). The NIGC may consider economics, technical feasibility, and agency statutory missions when establishing the range of reasonable alternatives studied in an EA or EIS (See 40 CFR 1505.2(b)).
Reasonable alternatives means the range of reason- able regulatory options that the agency has authority to con- sider under the statute granting rulemaking authority, includ- ing flexible regulatory options, unless precluded by the statute granting the rulemaking authority.’’.
Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically fea- sible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where appli- cable, meet the goals of the applicant. (aa) Reasonably foreseeable means suf- ficiently likely to occur such that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision. (bb) Referring agency means the Fed- eral agency that has referred any mat- ter to the Council after a determina- tion that the matter is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health orwelfare or environmental quality.
Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant. (aa) Reasonably foreseeable means sufficiently likely to occur such that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision. (bb) “Referring agency” means the federalFederal agency whichthat has referred any matter to the Council after a determination that the matter is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality.(cc) §1508.25 Scope.“Scope” consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its rela- tionshipsrelationships to other statements (§§1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of environ- mental impact statements, agencies shall con- sider 3 types of actions, 3 types of alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include:§ 1501.11).(a)Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be:(1)Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:(i)Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements.(ii)Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.(iii)Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. (2)Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impactsand should therefore be dis- cussed in the same impact statement.(3)Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental conse- quencies together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to assess ade- quately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.(b)Alternatives, which include:(1)No action alternative.(2)Other reasonable courses of actions. (3)Mitigation measures (not in the proposed action).(c)Impacts, which may be: (1) direct; (2) indirect; (3) cumulative. §1508.26 Special expertise.
Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant.” (Emphasis added.) Here, “technically and economically feasible” implies only that the alternative must be physically and economically feasible, i.e. a reasonable alternative must be technically executable. (An alternative for rerouting a pipeline would not be “technically feasible” in this sense if that alternative was physically impossible due to considerations of terrain, slope, etc.) The definition does not make evident the CEQ’s intended meaning—that the alternative must be within the lead agency’s jurisdiction to implement. This must be made explicit. Recommendation: Revise § 1508.1(z) to read:
Reasonable alternatives means a reasonable range of alternatives within the lead agency’s jurisdiction to implement that are technically and economically feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the applicant.” Issue #4: Use of the term “government” to qualify State, Tribal, and local governmental entities. Problem: The draft regulations are inconsistent in how they refer to State, Tribal, and local governmental entities. For example, in draft § 1501.2(b)(4)(ii) the CEQ uses the term “State, Tribal, and local governments.” This is done “consistent with and in support of government-to-government consultation pursuant to E.O. 13175 and E.O. 13132 “Federalism” (Federal Register, p. 1695, col. 2). However, in many other places throughout the draft regulations, the word “agency” is used instead of “government” (e.g.§ 1501.8(a): “A State, Tribal, or local agency of similar qualifications…”). Recommendation: The regulations should use consistent language to refer to State, Tribal, and local governmental entities throughout. We propose the form “State, Tribal, and local government agencies,” which specifies that the entity must be, or be a subunit of, a government. The form “State, Tribal, and local agencies” is not acceptable, because the term “local agency” is ambiguous and does not imply a governmental body.Issue #5: Socio-economic effects should be presumed present unless determined by the lead and, if available, cooperating agencies, to be absent. Problem: In many places in the draft NEPA regulations, the CEQ rightly makes clear that socio- economic analysis of NEPA alternatives is an essential part of the NEPA process. See for example: § 1501.2(b)(1); § 1501.2(b)(2); § 1502.6. However, new language at draft § 1502.16((a)(10) and § 1502.16(b) implies that when considering the consequences of a major federal action, socio-economic effects are the exception, not the rule. Further, these new sections together imply that the lead agency may determine in isolation whether or not socio-economic impacts are likely without consulting with cooperating agencies who (as is the case with Humboldt County) have special socio-economic expertise. Specifically, the draft regulations state that the discussion on environmental consequences shall include: § 1502.16((a)(10): “Where applicable, economic and technical considerations including the economic benefits of the proposed action.” (Emphasis added.) Further, § 1502.16(b) states: