|
Record of Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses
<br />Council Memo
<br />January 8;2001
<br />Page 5
<br />full; fair;bona:fde complancewithNEPA..
<br />1,athan v. $rinegaz, 506 F.'2d 677 „ 692-93 (8C° Cir, '1974)(en
<br />banc).
<br />Th`. ~gehxtish Rebellion Inc. v. Hodel, 790` F.2d 760 (1986}`; the
<br />Ninth Circuit Eurthex:dacuasedNEPA`s decision making
<br />'requirements and:need for.Yeasoned.alterhatives aa'i
<br />NEPA'providesthatenvironmentalimpact statementsmust
<br />include an:.analyaia Qf alterhatives..to the proposed action.
<br />42'V.S.C. 5-4332 (21(C)(iii);' This requirementis central to '
<br />NEPA:'s goal of promoting environmentally"sound
<br />deoieion-making. See4D C. F; R. § 1502.14 (1985) (the 'section
<br />inthe environmental'-impact atatemehC.containing the:
<br />analysis of ^.alternativee including the proposed action .
<br />. is?::the heart of theenvisonmental.~impact statement.. .
<br />It should present the environmental `impacts of the ps;oposal
<br />ahdthe alternatives an comparativeform, thus sharply
<br />defining the,isauea ahd providing a cleaYbasis for choice
<br />amonaoptiona by the:de~aionmaker aid thepublic.");'see
<br />also42 U.SCC. § 4332(2)(B);'l40 C.F:R. § 1500:.1(c)~(1985).
<br />Not only does an alternative action provide an important
<br />source of comparison,rto the proposed action,`it may itself
<br />be'eelected'as the;,propoaed'action. See `California v: Block,-'.
<br />690 F.2d 753,`, 772 (9th Cir. .`1982).
<br />:T$. at 768 (etnphasisadded); seealso,-, Northeuckland Civic Aas'n:
<br />s`. Schlesinger, '903 F.2d 3533, 154'1 (11`" .Cir. 149.0) f"The `
<br />regulations require that the environmental impacts of the
<br />'.proposal 'and thealternativesbe presented in comparative.-form,
<br />L-hus sharply defining the'`issues:and providing aclear basis for '
<br />choice among options by i..'. the public.°)'
<br />Also, the-EIS must disclose its inf ormation "ia terms
<br />°intelligble to^`intereated members ofthe public>' public
<br />servants;ahd.legislators;'" _:TOngassConservation 3oc'..'v.
<br />-Clienev, 924 F.2d.1137, 1142 (D.C..C1Y. 1991)(JUStiCe R. 'Ginsburg -.
<br />wziting).(citing:.NaturalResources'Ae£enee:Counci LS I}lc. v', United:.
<br />State sNUOlea rReaulatorv: Comm'n: ; 685 F.2d 459, 'r487 n..249 (D.C.''
<br />s
<br />Council: Memo -
<br />- . January' 8, 2001 _ -
<br />- Page ~ 6 -
<br />' ~ Cir. 1982}, rev'd on other grounds nub nom: Baltimore Gaa ~ Slec.-
<br />- ~~:~Natura~-Resources Defense Counsel. jnc., 462 U.S. 87, 103
<br />" S,~Ct. .2246 (1983}, and finding that only a Supplemental Aflflenflum
<br />to the".EIS-created sufficient record to prevent EI8 from being
<br />defective in multiple, Navy site aelectioaY:
<br />r The whole series of 8IS requirements has been summed up by'the
<br />Seventh Circuit_as:
<br />several regulations"under NEPA addYessing,the.
<br />imglementaEion of EISs also bear'.on the present case.
<br />First, the regulations require a "rigorous analysis"" of
<br />alternatives to the"proposed plan „ including a "substantial
<br />treatment° oftheae alternatives-.in:comparison~to~-tbe'"-
<br />- proposed plan. 40C.F..R. Sec."1502.14 (1993).. Second, the
<br />regulations require an agency undertaking .an EI3 to. "insure .
<br />" the-professional integrity, including ecientific~integrity,
<br />of the discussions and analyses"i'a envirobmental impact'
<br />- statements.":40 C.F:R.Sed.1502-.29-(1993). "Additionally,
<br />the regulations, require that-the analysis"be undertaken with "
<br />an "interdisciplinary"approach" to "insure the integrated
<br />~` use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental"
<br />deaiga:arts."~40 C:F.R: Sec. 1502.6'(1943). NEPA also
<br />requires consideration in an EIS of'the "ecological" effects
<br />_of a proposed action. 40 C.F.R. Sec. .1508:8 (1993).
<br />Ecological effects include"the effects on natural resources
<br />and on'the components., structures', and functioning of
<br />affeoted ecosystems." Id: Finally, as a matter of general
<br />.policy, NBPA is designed to ensure."that environmental
<br />information is available to public officials and citizens
<br />before:deciaiona are made and before actions era taken. The
<br />linformation must be of-high quality, Accurate acienti£ic
<br />!analysis,. expert agency commenta,,and public scrutiny are
<br />- eeaential to implementittg NEPA.". 40 C.F.R.Sec. 1500.1(b).
<br />~SierraClub v. Marita, 46 F.3d_606, 616.(1995)(rehrg: denied)..
<br />Put another way,."the agency must squarely turn all procedural
<br />" corner8in its-EIS..-Dubois v U S Dent of Aoriculture,102~
<br />F.3d1273, 1287 (1.0 Cir.~1996), cert. denied, 521 U:S. 1119
<br />(1997},
<br />
|