Common use of Reasonable Alternatives Clause in Contracts

Reasonable Alternatives. i. This section describes the alternatives selected, as well as those eliminated, and describes the process that was used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential alternatives, based on the defined purpose and need of the project. Describe the following: 1. All reasonable alternatives, including those brought forth by the public, consultants or resource agencies; 2. Other alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study; 3. How alternatives were selected for detailed study; 4. The reasons alternatives were eliminated from consideration; and 5. How the alternatives meet the need for the project and avoid or minimized environmental impacts. ii. If tolling is proposed for an alternative, this must be clearly described. iii. All reasonable alternatives should be discussed at a comparable level of detail. iv. The range of reasonable alternatives should begin with the “No Build” Alternative. v. A preferred alternative should be selected as a result of a rational screening process based on meeting project objectives, community and natural environmental impacts, cost, and other considerations, which should be explained in the EA. A matrix to compare the alternatives is recommended.

Reasonable Alternatives. i. This section describes the alternatives selected, as well as those eliminated, and describes the process that was used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential alternatives, based on the defined purpose and need of the project. Describe the following: 1. All reasonable Reasonable alternatives, including those brought forth by the public, consultants or resource agencies; 2. Other alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study; 3. How alternatives were selected for detailed study; 4. The reasons alternatives were eliminated from consideration; and 5. How the alternatives meet the need for the project and avoid or minimized reduce environmental impacts. ii. If tolling is proposed for an alternative, this must be clearly described. iii. All reasonable Reasonable alternatives should be discussed at a comparable level of detail. iv. The range of reasonable alternatives should begin with the “No Build” Alternative. v. A preferred alternative should be selected as a result of a rational screening process based on meeting project objectives, community and natural environmental impacts, cost, and other considerations, which should be explained in the EA. A matrix to compare the alternatives is recommended.

Reasonable Alternatives. i. This section describes the alternatives selected, as well as those eliminated, and describes the process that was used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential alternatives, based on the defined purpose and need of the project. Describe the following: 1. :  All reasonable alternatives, including those brought forth by the public, consultants or resource agencies; 2. ;  Other alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study; 3. ;  How alternatives were selected for detailed study; 4. ;  The reasons alternatives were eliminated from consideration; and 5. and  How the alternatives meet the need for the project and avoid or minimized environmental impacts. ii.  If tolling is proposed for an alternative, this must be clearly described. iii.  All reasonable alternatives should be discussed at a comparable level of detail. iv.  The range of reasonable alternatives should begin with the “No Build” Alternative. v. .  A preferred alternative should be selected as a result of a rational screening process based on meeting project objectives, community and natural environmental impacts, cost, and other considerations, which should be explained in the EAEIS. A matrix to compare the alternatives is recommended.