Laserfiche WebLink
<br />_u. ___ __.... _~_, . ..__ <br /> <br />. ~~- . ,. <br /> <br />.'- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. ( ...~ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />- 25 - <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />accelerated construction schedule would only increase <br /> <br />exponentially the impacts from the plant, rendering mit- <br /> <br />igation even more necessary. Yet none of these facts is <br /> <br />disclosed. <br /> <br />These are just a few examples of alternatives and <br /> <br />'-' <br /> <br />problems that are not given sufficient attention in the <br /> <br />draft EIS. One can only speculate that these failings <br /> <br />stem at least in part from a desire to expedite the proj- <br /> <br />ect at any cost, a desire that contravenes the NEPA <br /> <br />regulations. <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />As noted above, section 1502.2(g) states that envi- <br /> <br />ronmental impact statements "shall serve as the means of <br /> <br />assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency <br /> <br />actions, rather than justifying decisions already made." <br /> <br />This mandate is reinforced by section IS06.1, which states <br /> <br />'in relevant part that: <br /> <br />"(a) Until an agency issues a record <br />of decision as provided in S ISOS.2"(ex- <br />cept as provided "in paragraph (c) of this <br />section), no action concerning the pro- <br />posal shall be taken which would: <br /> <br />"(1) Have an adverse environmental <br />impact 1 or <br /> <br />0390 <br /> <br />, <br />