07-98
CHAPTER 11
14b. Q. How are disputes resolved between lead and cooperating agencies
concerning the scope and level of detail of analysis and the quality of data
in impact statements?
A. Such disputes are resolved by the agencies themselves. A lead agency, of
course, has the ultimate responsibility for the content of an EIS. But it is
supposed to use the environmental analysis and recommendations of cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise to the maximum extent
possible, consistent with its own responsibilities as lead agency. Section
1501.6(a)(2). If the lead agency leaves out a significant issue or ignores the
advice and expertise of the cooperating agency, the EIS may be found later to
be inadequate. Similarly, where cooperating agencies have their own decisions
to make and they intend to adopt the environmental impact statement and base
their decisions on it, one document should include all of the information
necessary for the decisions by the cooperating agencies. Otherwise they may be
forced to duplicate the EIS process by issuing a new, more complete EIS or
Supplemental EIS, even though the original EIS could have sufficed if it had
been properly done at the outset. Thus, both lead and cooperating agencies
have a stake in producing a document of good quality. Cooperating agencies
also have a duty to participate fully in the scoping process to ensure that
the appropriate range of issues is determined early in the EIS process.
Because the EIS is not the Record of Decision, but instead constitutes the
information and analysis on which to base a decision, disagreements about
conclusions to be drawn from the EIS need not inhibit agencies from issuing a
joint document, or adopting another agency's EIS, if the analysis is adequate.
Thus, if each agency has its own "preferred alternative," both can be
identified in the EIS. Similarly, a cooperating agency with jurisdiction by
law may determine in its own ROD that alternative A is the environmentally
preferable action, even though the lead agency has decided in its separate ROD
that Alternative B is environmentally preferable.
14c. Q. What are the specific responsibilities of federal and state
cooperating agencies to review draft EISs?
A. Cooperating agencies (i.e., agencies with jurisdiction by law or special
expertise) and agencies that are authorized to develop or enforce
environmental standards, must comment on environmental impact statements
within their jurisdiction, expertise or authority. Sections 1503.2, 1508.5. If
a cooperating agency is satisfied that its views are adequately reflected in
the environmental impact statement, it should simply comment accordingly.
Conversely, if the cooperating agency determines that a draft EIS is
incomplete, inadequate, or inaccurate, or it has other comments, it should
promptly make such comments, conforming to the requirements of specificity in
Section 1503.3.
14d. Q. How is the lead agency to treat the comments of another agency with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise that has failed or refused to
cooperate or participate in scoping or EIS preparation?
44
Previous Page
