07-98
summarized if they are especially voluminous. The comments or summaries must
be attached to the EIS regardless of whether the agency believes they merit
individual discussion in the body of the final EIS.
CHAPTER 11
29b. Q. How must an agency respond to a comment on a draft EIS that raises a
new alternative not previously considered in the draft EIS?
A. This question might arise in several possible situations. First, a
commentor on a draft EIS may indicate that there is a possible alternative
that, in the agency's view, is not a reasonable alternative. Section
1502.14(a). If that is the case, the agency must explain why the comment does
not warrant further agency response, citing authorities or reasons that
support the agency's position and, if appropriate, indicate those
circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.
Section 1503.4(a). For example, a commentor on a draft EIS on a coal-fired
power plant may suggest the alternative of using synthetic fuel. The agency
may reject the alternative with a brief discussion (with authorities) of the
unavailability of synthetic fuel within the time frame necessary to meet the
need and purpose of the proposed facility. A second possibility is that an
agency may receive a comment indicating that particular alternative, while
reasonable, should be modified somewhat, or example, to achieve certain
mitigation benefits, or for other reasons. If the modification is reasonable,
the agency should include a discussion of it in the final EIS. For example, a
commentor on a draft EIS on a proposal for a pumped storage power facility
might suggest that the applicant's proposed alternative should be enhanced by
the addition of certain reasonable mitigation measures, including the purchase
and set aside of a wildlife preserve to substitute for the tract to be
destroyed by the project. The modified alternative including the additional
mitigation measures should be discussed by the agency in the final EIS.
A third slightly different possibility is that a comment on a draft EIS will
raise an alternative which is a minor variation of one of the alternatives
discussed in the draft EIS, but this variation was not given any consideration
by the agency. In such a case, the agency should develop and evaluate the new
alternative, if it is reasonable, in the final EIS. If it is qualitatively
within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed in the draft, a
supplemental draft will not be needed. For example, a commentor on a draft EIS
to designate a wilderness area within a National Forest might reasonably
identify a specific tract of the forest, and urge that it be considered for
designation. If the draft EIS considered designation of a range of alternative
tracts which encompassed forest area of similar quality and quantity, no
supplemental EIS would have to be prepared. The agency could fulfill its
obligation by addressing that specific alternative in the final EIS.
As another example, an EIS on an urban housing project may analyze the
alternatives of constructing 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000 units. A commentor on the
draft EIS might urge the consideration of constructing 5,000 units utilizing a
different configuration of buildings. This alternative is within the spectrum
of alternatives already considered, and, therefore, could be addressed in the
final EIS.
A fourth possibility is that a commentor points out an alternative which is
not a variation of the proposal or of any alternative discussed in the draft
impact statement, and is a reasonable alternative that warrants serious agency
54
Previous Page
