The U.S. Department of the Interior filed an environmental impact statement (EIS) with regard to its proposal to lease approximately eighty tracts of submerged land, primarily located off the coast of Louisiana, for oil and gas exploration.

Adjacent to the proposed area is the greatest estuarine coastal marsh in the United States. This marsh provides rich nutrients for the Gulf of Mexico, the most productive fishing region of the country. The EIS focused primarily on oil pollution and its negative environmental effect. Three conservation groups contend that the EIS is insufficient in that it does not properly discuss alternatives.

The government contends that

(a) it need only provide a detailed statement of the alternatives, not a discussion of their environmental impact, and

(b) the only alternatives the NEPA requires it to discuss are those that can be adopted and implemented by the agency issuing the impact statement. Is the government correct in its contentions? Why?