Laserfiche WebLink
___ __ __ __.._ .......- • ID: • PAGE 11/30 <br />category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively <br />have a significant effect on the human environment." 90 C.F.R. <br />§1.508.4. A categorical exclusion is not applicable when a <br />normally excluded action results in significant environmental <br />eff•:cts. Id. <br />38. NEPA regulations require agencies to consider connected <br />act;.ons together in a single EIS. Connected actions include <br />thoe:e activities which "ja)re parts of a larger action and depend <br />on the larger action for their justification." 90 C.F.R. § <br />1508.25(a)(1)(iii). <br />34. Defendant DOE issued two categorical exclusions: one <br />for the road easement and one for the license to relocate a goad. <br />10 C.F_R. § 1021, App. B1.13. Both roads are inextricably <br />intel~tuined with WAI expansion of its sand and gravel mining <br />operation which will significantly impact the environment. In <br />both cases, activities connected with the road easement and <br />license to relocate caused significant environmental impacts. <br />40. By invoking categorical exclusions for the road <br />easement and license to relocate and not preparing an EIS. <br />Dependant DOE has unlawfully withheld compliance with b3EPA, 42 <br />D_S.c. § 433z(2)(C), within the meaning of the Administrative <br />Procedures Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Consequently, Defendant DOE's <br />issuartce of the road easement and license without compliance with <br />ISEPA is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not 1n <br />accordance with the law, and without observance of procedures <br />required by law within the meaning of Che Administrative <br />Second Amcndtd Complaint <br />11 <br />