Record of Decision New Federal Courthouse

New Search

Record cf Decision Attachment C -Agency Comment and Responses 1A.2 The GSA Public Buildings Service NEPA Desk Guide states on page 7-9 that "When GSA prepares a DEIS, if one or more preferred alternatives exist then GSA must identify them. At the time of the FEIS, GSA must identify one preferred alternative." The GSA did not include a preferred alternative in the draft EIS, because the preferred alternative had not been selected when the document was issued. After the draft EIS was issued, the GSA selected the Chiquita (formerly Agripac) site as the preferred alternative, and the final EIS stated this fact. Council Memo January e, .2001 Page 7 ~ _.. Here, the purely conclusionary "preferred alternative' taga:?on the selected alternatine..do not indicate any'reasoned ahisildng as to how GSA reached, those conaluaions: Thus, .such lalieling ' without reasoned;comparisoa does not provide any "clear basis' for .the determination.:.nor "squarely turn the, procedural corners," and is. therefore unsupportable under the NEPA "hard look" doctrine. This is especially. important where wrhea reviewing the separate categories all of .them seem to come .up . equally benign, or with equivalent mitigatable impacts. 12.) THS DRAFT EIS DID NOT IDENTIPY TAB PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AS ~. 1a.2 REQUIRED HY .LAW AND'TAUS WITHOUT FURTHSA OPPORTUNITY. P.OR PUBLIC COMMENT MAKES THE FEIS DEPECTIVE ~ ' Equally important from a public involvement requirement, the Draft BI§ (DHSS")' did noL'identify the preferred alternative as ..required bysection_40 CFR 1502.14(e). Such omissioa~is'only allowed when prevented, by another statute. without having the r preferred alternative selected in the.DBIS,-the public has lost a -valuable right to comment bn'the aeleotian of such alternative. while the law is sparse 'on this provision, it is a .clear mandatory procedural duty of: NEPA to'allow:comment on the ~. selected:alteraative.: In-the twa cases in~the Ninth. Circuitthat mentioned this CPR,..each haa:'mentioned itiu~a ooatezt of ~.'~ supporting such action. .$ee. A n of pub Avea6Y customers v BonnevilleYOwer,-126 F.3d'~1158,-1185 (9°° Cir.Y997); Metcalf v. -Dale ,.,214 F.3d 1135(9C° Cir. 2000)..:_In Metcalf,_acase challenging: to Makah'whaling practice SA; ,the Court statedt We noted also: that council on Environmental Quality.("CEQ"J _, ' .regulations actually encourage:,identification of a preferred course; of action during. the NEPA_proce~~ ...." ad. aE' 1145. Notonlydo the CEQ_regulations "encourage"it, but they require it. Sere it is especially critical because::of the lack .of reasoned .analysis of the preferred selection, and the'fact that: certain items ia.the preferred selection:.have not been fully explored,..