Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.....__.L <br /> <br />'--' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.'\0-.. <br /> <br />- 30 - <br /> <br />'--' <br /> <br />earlier stated he could not prejudge (id. at R-7), and <br /> <br />ass~rts, without any basis and indeed contrary to fact, <br /> <br />'J <br /> <br />that Utah residents would not derive any benefit from a <br /> <br />Rangely plant site. The cited statement by the Utah State <br /> <br />'-- <br /> <br />Engineer can be viewed as having only one possible purpose: <br /> <br />limiting the choice of reasonable alternatives considered <br /> <br />by the agencies. Securing this letter was obviously <br />-:./ <br />designed to prejudice the decisionmaking process. <br /> <br />We submit that it makes a mockery not only of the <br /> <br />participants in the NEPA process but of the process as <br /> <br />'-/ <br /> <br />well to proceed in a manner which evidences such a cava- <br /> <br />lier disregard of the need fully to consider alternatives <br /> <br />before decisions are made and of the need to disallow or <br /> <br />prevent actions which are calculated only to ensure that a <br /> <br />certain outcome is reached. In this regard too, the draft <br /> <br />EIS and the process which led up to its release is seri- <br /> <br />ously deficient from a legal point of view. <br /> <br />*/ Moreover, the agencies' blind acceptance of the letter's <br />assertions seems to contradict the requirement of indepen- <br />dent analysis of interested parties' assertions, discussed <br />infra. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0385 <br />