Laserfiche WebLink
<br />v <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />d, <br />o , <br /> <br />- 9 - <br /> <br />-.... <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />United States Environmental Protection Agency) for the <br /> <br />Bonanza site but not for the Rangely site strongly sup- <br /> <br />ports the conclusion that the entire EIS process, with its <br /> <br />purported analysis of alternatives, has not been the open- <br /> <br />minded, good-faith exercise required by the National <br /> <br />Environmental Policy Act, but rather an unlawful, ~ post <br /> <br />rationalization of a decision already made. Throughout <br /> <br />our comments, we demonstrate comments or actions by the <br /> <br />reviewing federal agencies which reflect a lack of objec- <br /> <br />tivity and a predetermined result. <br /> <br />Each of the comments made by the County must ~e <br /> <br />carefully evaluated and full and thoughtful responses pro- <br /> <br /> <br />vided by the federal agencies in the final EIS. The <br /> <br /> <br />course of action recommended in the draft EIS is an in- <br /> <br /> <br />tolerable one from the point of view of Rio Blanco County. <br /> <br />'It is inconsistent with the legal requirements imposed by <br /> <br />the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land <br /> <br />Policy and Management Act, and the Rural Electrification <br /> <br /> <br />Act of 1936. Rio Blanco County urges that the deficien- <br /> <br />cies in the draft EIS be corrected in the final EIS and <br /> <br /> <br />that the federal agencies reverse their tentative decision <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />-.... <br /> <br />'J <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />040:; <br />