Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record c f Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses . ' .Council memo . .-.:_.~.7anpary.8,.2001 -. :`~ ~. ..Page :3 ~ ~ .. (e) Identify the agency~s preferred alternative r or alternatives, if one or'more exists', in the draft abatement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another: law prohibits'the~xpression of such :a preference. .... 40. C.F:R:: § 1508,14. (2000).: :~Aa to.thadeficiency, the::FEiS'doea not'contain:any dlscussion~ of how the various alteraativee,were ac$pally compared:to arrive at-the preferred alternaEive, No:'2', Option 1.' This deficSettcy becomes paramount:becauae of the "hard look" 'standard that courts are required'ro use to`review government SISa. See`Neiahbora:of Cuddy Mountain v.'u.S. Forest Service, ~:131F'.-3d ^1372,,13:76 (9°"~Cir.1998)~. Thehard look-docEriae~hae been described as: t. Courts taking a hard look must become'-auffiaiently acquainted with bechnicalmatters in the"reco;d to understand why the. agency did'what-it did: : IInder.the doctrine, assumptions must be--spelled out, inconsistencies explained, methodologies disclosed, ceatradictory:evidence rebutted, record references solidly grounded; guess work eliminated-and ,conclusions supported in a`~mannez:;capable;of :judicial understanding." William Rodgers, A xard;LOOk at Vermont Yankee; environmental Law Under Close Scrutiny, 67-Geo. L.,--Rev:699, 705.-- 706 (1979). Further, any reviewing court needs a sufficient agency analysis to assure itself-that the-agency has not select@d a predisposed' alternative with only-.cursory justification of itl The importance o£ the alternative comparisons has been stated as: [Ilt is incumbent on the Commission to undertake_its-own preliminary investigation of she proffered alternatipe sufficient'to reach a rational judgment:whether it ia'worthy of detailed consideration in':Lhe EIS. Moreover, the Commission'must explain the basis"for:each conclusion.that : Council Memo ~ ~ - January,8, 2001' - ~ - ~ ~ - : -'Page 4 ~ -. ,~ further consideration of a suggested alternative is unwarranted. An explicit atatement:is essential to enable the 'parties to challenge the agency's action through motions for reconaide;atioa,. and to facilitate judicial review. The ,preliminary investigation of an,alCernative to determine :whether it merits further consideration need not be'nearly- ae:detailed as tha6 required regarding alternatives which.' >are considered is the 8i5: often a:short explanation will: suffice. It ie not "onerous" EoY an:agancy, as well as .a court, ;to state its reasons "if the.matteY'was dealE.with in a conscientious manner in passing on the:merita:^ See: axis v.: Clark, 131 U.S.:.App: D,C. 379;:404 F.2d 1356; 1358.'(1968)'. (separate .:opinion of :Tatum, J,)... ~'~ 'Aeschliman v.~United States-Nuclea±-~Reg.-COm'n: ,-547~F:2d'~622~.~ 628 (DiC. ~~Cir:1976),.'reversed on'other grounds, 635:U.S.519,. 96: S.Ct. 1197 (1977)(;egniring conaideration;of reasonable energy.' conservation-alternative in nuclear power plant EIS):; And the:Ninth Circuit has stated: The procedurearequiredby.NEPA, 42 U.S.C:li 4332(2)(C1, are designed to secure'the accomplishment of the vital purpose of"NEPA. That result can be achieved only if. the prescribed .:procedures-are faithfully followed; grndging; pro forma compliance will not do. . As Mr. Suatice Frankfurter said 1n a:criminal'case, in words that are equally_applicable to the:actiona:of administrative agencies: "The history of liberty has largely been the hietory;of:obaervaace.of procedural'eaPeguarda.• McNabb v. United-Statea;1943,~318..~U:S. 332, 347; 87 b.~.Ed. 819,:~63S..Ct.608.$oitmay alsobewiththe~history:of- ~~ environment. (citations omitted):: This does not mean that Ehe courts are to •fly speck" environmental impact statements. The .preparation o£'such a statement necessarily calls for: judgment; and that 'judgment is'the agency's. But the courts"can,'and should; require