NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 64

r Any agency which has requested that it receive statements on actions
of the kind proposed
r The applicant if the EIS addresses issuance of a permit or similar
project proponent
r The public
The issuing agency must have a procedure in place to receive comments,
and the procedure must be described concurrently with the release of the
draft EIS. The comment period must be at least 45 days, but the lead agency
can extend the period at its discretion.
Careful attention to the comments received on the draft EIS is important,
not only to produce a better analysis but also to ensure adherence to NEPA
procedure and thus produce a legally defensible document. The federal
agency proposing the action and issuing the draft EIS must consider every
comment and prepare a response. The response to most comments will be in
one of three forms:
r State that the comment has already been addressed and cite the loca-
tion in the draft EIS where it was considered.
r Objectively explain why the issue raised is not relevant to the NEPA
process, such as documenting that it was beyond the purpose and
need for the action (see Section 3.2).
r Perform the analysis, consider the alternative, incorporate the data, etc.
referenced in the comment and reevaluate the impacts in a revision to
the draft EIS (i.e., a final EIS or supplemental draft EIS; see Chapter 6).
The response to comments on the draft EIS has both administrative and
efficiency elements. The administrative aspect is to keep track of the com-
ments and ensure each is addressed by one of the responses discussed above.
There are numerous software applications available to keep track of com-
ments and they provide very useful techniques for tracking and the logistics
of producing a response to comments.
Experience has shown that even if a large number of comments (some-
times in the thousands) are received, there are typically three to five concerns
that cover 90% of the comments. Efficiency in addressing comments on the
draft EIS begins by identifying those three to five concerns early. A common
response can then be prepared and the appropriate prepared response noted
as the comments are received. This approach not only reduces the effort (and
associated cost) and time to respond to comments, it also minimizes the pos-
sibility of inconsistency in responding to comments. The unified response to
common issues also makes for a much more readable document.
Experience has also shown there is considerable overlap between comments
received during scoping and comments on the draft EIS. If stakeholders have
a burning issue, they will raise it during scoping, and the scoping document