Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />'-- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />"' <br />-., ...... <br /> <br />- 15 - <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />Similarly, socioeeonomic impacts <br /> <br />the second <br /> <br />major issue -- are described, but there is no breakdown of <br /> <br />.'.'.........; <br /> <br />-../ <br /> <br />costs and revenues between the respective counties and <br /> <br />towns and again there is no analysis of how alternatives <br /> <br />(other than the no-action alternative) might differen- <br /> <br />'-- <br /> <br />tially cause or reduce or mitigate such impacts. It is <br /> <br />not made clear that locating the plant where the impacts <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />would be felt would facilitate mitigation by providing tax <br /> <br />revenues to offset socioeconomic expenditures. There are <br /> <br />at least three separate discussions of air quality -- <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />major issue number three -- but none focuses on the dif- <br /> <br />ferential impacts of the alternatives suggested. Instead, <br /> <br />there is simply a catalogue of data which the draft con- <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />cedes does not accurately reflect the conditions that may <br /> <br />be expected to occur. Consequently, the reader comes away <br /> <br />'confused and unknowing -- and perhaps thinking that no <br /> <br />matter what course is chosen, there will be no difference. <br /> <br />This conclusion is obviously erroneous. <br /> <br />Second, impacts are not discussed in proportion to <br /> <br />their significance. Thus, for example, the draft EIS and <br /> <br />the appendices thereto devote lengthy discussions to <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />:~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0'/00 <br />