NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 66

included in an appendix but should be referenced and summarized
in the body of the final EIS)
r Documentation of the Public Outreach Program (this also can be an
appendix and summarized in the body of the document)
r If necessary, an errata sheet correcting any mistakes in the draft EIS

The final EIS must complete the analysis by including stakeholder input
and comparison of alternatives, but unlike the draft, the final must include
identification of the preferred alternative. Although identification of the
“environmentally preferred” alternative and why it was not selected (if it
was not) is not required in the final EIS, it is required to be identified in the
ROD. It can be efficient and useful to readers and decision makers to iden-
tify and discuss this alternative in the final EIS because the justification and
rationale for the designation and choice are in the final EIS. If this process
is followed, the ROD can simply state the conclusions and refer to the final
EIS for the details. Similarly, the mitigation measures available and rationale
for incorporating or rejecting the measures are required to be included in
the ROD but not necessarily the final EIS. However, for the same reasons for
inclusion of the environmentally preferred alternative in the final EIS, miti-
gation should be fully discussed in the document.
In contrast to the draft, there is no requirement for the agency proposing the
action to request comments on the final EIS. The CEQ Regulations encourage
solicitation of comments but leave it up to individual agencies to develop the
policy and procedures best suited to the agency for comment on the final EIS.
Each agency's guidance for compliance with CEQ Regulations documents the
requirements and procedures, if any, for comments on the final EIS. The advan-
tages of making the final EIS available for comment are that it can help build
public and agency support in implementing the proposed action and also pro-
vide another chance to correct any deficiency in the EIS and minimize the poten-
tial for legal action rejecting the EIS. Similarly if a stakeholder is contemplating
litigation against the EIS, the courts have commented that they have a stronger
case if they raise the deficiency in comments on the EIS and the agency fails to
address them, rather than raising them the first time in the legal challenge.

3.1.3.6 Record of Decision

Following release of the final EIS, the federal agency proposing the action
prepares its ROD (see also Section 2.3.5). This should be a very concise docu-
ment, frequently not more than a few pages and it represents an enforceable
commitment by the agency. The ROD should be limited to summarizing the
following:

r What the agency has decided to do
r Which alternatives were considered