Why does the CEQ consider the section on alternatives to be the “heart” of an EIS? Is it considered.


Why does the CEQ deliberate the individuality on opinions to be the “heart” of an EIS? Is it deliberateed mismisappropriate for an exercise to identify its “preferred” opinion? Why or why not? At what step in the rule?

How does your declare synod re-examination federal EISs? Does this rule show to be functioning as adapted? Is the availability of EISs for open and exercise re-examination, and how to gain them, a well-known reality in your area?