NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 63

The EIS must also list all federal permits that are required to implement
the proposed action. These permits and their specific requirements are crit-
ical to the development of impact significance criteria and comparison of
alternatives (see Chapter 9). As discussed in Chapter 9, an understanding
of environmental permit requirements of the proposed action and integrat-
ing the requirements into the environmental impact analysis process is key
to efficient implementation of the proposed action. No one wants to prog-
ress through the entire NEPA or equivalent process only to learn that some
aspect of the proposed action cannot be permitted or must be modified to the
extent that a supplemental EIS is required.
The draft EIS can, but is not required to, identify the agency's preferred
alternative and proposed action. There are advantages to not identifying the
preferred alternative in the draft EIS, such as allowing the agency to con-
sider public input, including identification of new information before they
complete their alternative comparison and make a decision. This approach
also provides a mechanism for stakeholders to be active and productive
participants in the process and not just reactive to an agency decision. The
stakeholder acceptance and support developed by facilitating active partici-
pation in the process can be important in successful implementation of the
proposed project, program, or policy as it works its way through funding
requests, permit issuance, litigation, and the court of public opinion.
Not identifying a preferred alternative in a draft EIS when the agency actu-
ally has one can have adverse consequences. Such an approach undermines
the CEQ Regulations and NEPA's call for public disclosure and transparency.
It can also affect the cooperation and trust with stakeholders, including other
federal agencies that must issue environmental permits or approvals. The
lack of full disclosure exhibited by an agency's failure to expressly identify
its preferred alternative when it actually has one can also lead the agency to
complacency and result in arbitrary dismissal of other alternatives, which
can be an important arrow in the quill of a legal challenge of the EIS, Record
of Decision (ROD), and agency's NEPA procedure.

3.1.3.4 Review and Comment on Draft EIS

The draft EIS, with or without identification of a preferred alternative, is
released and noticed. As part of the release, the agency must establish a pro-
cedure to receive comments on the draft EIS. CEQ Regulations specify that
the agency issuing the draft EIS must obtain comments from all other federal
agencies with jurisdictional obligations or technical expertise related to a
predicted impact of the proposed action. In addition, the issuing agency must
request comments from other parties with interest in the action including:

r Appropriate state and local agencies
r Indian tribes with reservation land or other resources (e.g., fishing
rights) that could be affected by the proposed action