New Search
Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses <br />lA.l--The GSA has completed <br />and disclosed a reasoned <br />comparative analysis of <br />alternatives, as set forth in the <br />environmental assessment and the <br />subsequent draft and final EIS. <br />The draft and final EIS evaluated <br />the reasonable alternative sites and <br />described the potential impacts <br />from the project on the various <br />elements of the environment. The <br />Summary of Impacts and Affected <br />Environment, Impacts, and <br />Mitigation sections presented a <br />comparison between these <br />alternatives. The GSA selected its <br />preferred alternative based on <br />review of the environmental data <br />and evaluation of the screening <br />criteria for the project. The GSA <br />has provided the city of <br />Springfield with copies of the <br />draft and final EIS, as well as the <br />screening criteria. <br />Council Memo <br />.January ~ 8; 2001 <br />Page 2 ' - <br />1.)FAILURE TO COHPLBTS AND DISCLOSE A R&ASONBD.COMPARATIt18 <br />1a.1 ANALYSIS OFTHfi PRBFSRRED ALTSRNATIVB TO THBOTRSR.fiLIMINATED <br />ALTBRNATIVES.INTHB FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATENIENR'. <br />The GSA has failed to complete and disclose a reasoned . <br />comparative analysis of the preferred alternative to the other <br />alternativesin the-FEIS. .Rather, the agency has-instead only <br />made unsupported conclusions that Alternative 2 (Option i) is the <br />preferred alternative f;om the environmental perspective. <br />Controlling legal authority finds such a'conclusionary selection <br />of preferred aiternatives, without aufficientr delineation or <br />reasoning illegal. .The authority which prohibits ouch <br />inconclusive analysis begins with the Council on Environmental <br />Quality's regulation. entitled "Alternatives including the <br />proposed action."' It atateax <br />This section is the heart of the environmental <br />impact statement. Haled on'the informatioa:and <br />analysis presented in the sections on the Affected <br />~~Environmeat:(§1502.15),aadthe Environmental <br />' ~ ~ Consequences (§.1502.16),it~ahouldpreaent.the <br />environmental impacts of'the proposal sad the <br />;'.. 'alteraatipes in nomparative form,-thus sharply defining <br />the isauea and providing a clear basis f6r`choice among <br />options 'by the decisionaiaker and the public. Ia Ehis <br />' 'sectionagenciee shall; <br />(a) Rigoropsly explore and objectively evaluate <br />all reasonable alternativea,,aiid for'alteraativee which. <br />were eliminated from detailed sCudy,.briefly.diecuas <br />-the reasone.for;their having bees-eliminated. <br />~- (b))..Devote;substantial~treatmeat'to each-. <br />alternative:considered in detail including the proposed <br />_, action so ;that reviewers may evaluate theiY comparative <br />merits. <br />~ The CEQ requlations~implement NEPA.:Price Road <br />Nei~h~;,,rs~~a~~nRR+n. Snc_ v_.United StatesDent. of Traaso., 113 <br />F.3d-1505, 1509 ~(9°"-Cir:.1997).. ~ ~ - <br />r~ <br />j <br />