Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, '-' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 14 - <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />"(f) Agencies shall not commit re- <br />sources prejudicing selection of alter- <br />natives before making a final decision <br />(5 1506.1). <br /> <br />'-..- <br /> <br />"(g) Environmental impact statements <br />shall serve as the means of assessing the <br />environmental impact of proposed agency <br />actions, rather than justifying decisions <br />already made." 40 C.F.R. 5 1502.2. <br /> <br />We submit that the draftEIS fails woefully to fulfill <br /> <br />these criteria. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />First, the draft EIS is encyclopedic rather than <br /> <br />analytic. It does not analyze the comparative financial <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />costs of alternatives -- the first of the five major <br /> <br />issues identified in the scoping process -- except in the <br /> <br />Appendix. Even then, the burden is placed on the reader <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />to decipher and interpret the costs associated with the <br /> <br />available alternatives. Thus, for example, in connection <br /> <br />with the Rangely site alternative, cost figures are <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />provided for an electric railroad coal transportation <br /> <br />alternative even' though it seems clear to everyone con- <br /> <br />cerned that the electric railroad is not legitimately <br /> <br />associated with a Rangely plant site. This has the <br /> <br />obvious (and perhaps intended) effect of distorting and <br /> <br />masking the economic advantages of a Rangely site. <br /> <br />TOto <br />