My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC01387
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
13000-13999
>
WSPC01387
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 7:56:27 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 2:45:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8045
Description
Section D General Studies-Federal Projects-General
Date
1/1/3000
Title
Moon Lake Power Plant Project-Corres 1977-81-Comments of the Rio Blanco Board of County Commissioners on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Moon Lake Power Plant Project-Units 1 and 2
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 12 - <br /> <br />"~ <br /> <br />During the scoping process, the lead agencies <br /> <br />identified five major issues relevant to an analysis of <br /> <br />~' <br /> <br />Deseret's proposal to build the Moon Lake Power Plant <br />*/ <br />Project.- These were: (1) comparative financial costs <br /> <br />'-- <br /> <br />of alternatives; (2) social and economic. impacts on com- <br /> <br />munities in Utah and Colorado; (3) degradation of air <br /> <br />quality; (4) impacts on endangered fish species in the <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />Green and White Rivers; and (5) effects on the salinity of <br /> <br />the Colorado River system. DEIS at 2. To the extent that <br /> <br />these major issues are discussed at all in the draft EIS, <br /> <br />however, they are lost in a maze of extraneous background <br /> <br />data rather than the focus of a significant discussion of <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />environmental issues and alternatives. Alternatives"which <br /> <br />would "avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the <br /> <br />quality of the human environment" (40 C.F.R. S 1502.1) are <br /> <br />either ignored or discussed in the most cursory manner <br /> <br />possible. As the discussion that follows demonstrates, <br /> <br />this not only violates the CEQ regulations, but also makes <br /> <br />~/ Although additional issues were identified, ~ DEIS <br />at 24-25, the only treatment of those issues in the DEIS <br />consists of acknowledgment that they are indeed issues. <br />There is no discussion of how those issues could be re- <br />solved or of how, if they were, such resolution would have <br />adverse or favorable environmental impacts. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0403 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.