Nearly two decades ago, the United States Army began implementation of
a method for developing and analyzing reasonable alternatives, as per the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The method
was developed collaboratively by the Army's planners (including the
authors) and environmental advocates in response to the needs for
expeditious decision making (for the operational planners) and statutory
compliance (for the environmental aspects). Fundamentally, the method
painted a picture of the desired outcome in terms of quantifiable
attributes (what should the end result ideally look like?). It then
compared every possible alternative against those attributes, through a
series of screening operations (will these alternatives, if selected,
produce success?). Those alternatives remaining after the screening became
the reasonable alternatives; these were the only alternatives that could
produce successful outcomes if chosen. The method, initially developed for
the stationing of Army units and often referred to as the “Hierarchy
of Needs” screening process, is quick, understandable,
and—most importantly—allows the rationalization of the
decision-making process. Our article presents an overview of this novel
process, which is well suited for dealing with a continuing problem facing
federal agencies today—that of developing reasonable alternatives
and rationalizing the outcomes for all stakeholders.