Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The no-action alternative is necessary from a technical environmental
impact analysis perspective and as discussed in Chapter 4 also as a require-
ment for actions subject to NEPA. The no-action alternative is similar to
the description of the affected environment or existing conditions, but
they differ in ways critical to environmental impact analysis (Smith 2007).
As discussed in Chapter 5, the description of the affected environment is a
snapshot of each critical environmental resource as it exists prior to imple-
menting the proposed action or any of the alternatives. It is the base condi-
tion to measure change or impact resulting from the proposed action or
alternatives. In contrast, the no-action alternative represents a prediction of
the condition and characteristics of each environmental resource at some
point in the future if the purpose and need are not satisfied and no alter-
native is implemented. For example, in an area of traffic congestion and
anticipated significant future growth, the existing transportation condi-
tion might be described as mildly congested with wait times at stop lights
averaging 0.5 to 1.5 minutes. However, when the projected future growth is
added to the traffic projections, wait times might be 2 to 4 minutes and con-
gestion described as approaching gridlock. If the projected traffic impact
from the proposed action was a wait time of 1 minute at stop lights, and
the comparison was only to existing conditions, the projected impact to
other environmental resources might suggest little benefit compared with
adverse impacts. However when compared with the no-action alternative,
the future benefits of cutting trafic-light wait times by 50%-75% (i.e., from
2 to 4 minutes with no action for 1 minute for the proposed action) would
portray the impact trade-off in a different light. Appropriate presentation
and treatment of the no-action alternative can be a very useful and pro-
ductive approach in clearly illustrating the benefits of a proposed action to
stakeholders and gaining support for implementation (Eccleston 2008).
The classic case of utilizing the Hudson River in New York for power gen-
eration illustrates another example of the difference between no action and
the affected environment. The Hudson River estuary is a breeding ground
for the commercially and recreationally important striped bass or rockfish
(
Morone saxatilis
) and it was also identified as the primary source of water
for nuclear power plants and other electrical power generating operations
for the New York metropolitan area. These two attributes were in conflict
because withdrawing the water for cooling or other power generating pur-
poses also entrained or entrapped the immature forms of the bass and
resulted in significant mortality.
The impacts on striped bass were evaluated initially for each individual
power generating facility in comparison with existing conditions. The exist-
ing striped bass conditions were studied in detail and the conclusion was that
the Hudson River estuary supported millions of immature striped bass and
more than 90% of them never made it to maturity due to predation, natural
death, lack of adequate food to support such populations, etc. The environ-
mental analysis for each individual power generating facility environmental
Search WWH ::
Custom Search