Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.v <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />....., <br /> <br />- 22 - <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />"(b) Condition funding of actions on <br />mitigation. <br /> <br />'-..- <br /> <br />"(c) Upon request, inform cooperating <br />or commenting agencies on progress in <br />carrying out mitigation measures which <br />they have proposed and which were adopted <br />by the agency making the decision." <br />40 C.F.R. S 1505.3 (subparagraph (d) <br />omi tted ) . <br /> <br />'--' <br /> <br />We submit that the draft EIS is defective both be- <br /> <br />cause it fails to incorporate a meaningful discussion of <br /> <br />the alternatives, focusing instead on rationalizing the <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />applicant's desire to locate the power plant at the <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />Bonanza site, and because it fails accurately to depict <br /> <br />the impacts that would result from a decision to place the <br /> <br />plant at the Bonanza site. As a result, there is no dis- <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />cussion of potential financial consequences to Deseret of <br /> <br />failing to mitigate socioeconomic impacts in Rio Blanco <br /> <br />,County, thereby incurring the risk of unacceptably high <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />worker turnover. Nor is there any discussion of the miti- <br /> <br />gation alternatives that would be made both appropriate <br /> <br />and necessary by a decision to allow the plant to be built <br /> <br />at the Bonanza site. <br /> <br />The mitigating measures discussed in the draft EIS <br /> <br />(at 113-116, 318-323) are certainly necessary; many of <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0393 <br />