Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />toO <br />cr. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />~$;: <br /> <br />Cultural resources <br /> <br />Cultural resources in the project area include paleontological, <br />aboriginal, and historic sites. Preliminary data gathered indicate that <br />some of the sites may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register <br />of Historic Places. In the future without, the qual ity of sites is <br />expected to decline because of vandalism, weathering, and erosion. <br /> <br />Plans 7 and 8 include provisions to preserve cultural resources and <br />would have no significant adverse effects. Plans 3 and 9 would have two <br />main effects: sites would be inundated and increased recreat ion use, <br />could lead to disturbance and vandalism of sites. Twenty-eight sites, <br />including 9 petroglyphs, would be inundated under plan 3 and an estimated <br />55 sites would be inundated under plan 9. A cultural resource program <br />would be funded under plans 3 and 9 and would consist of data recovery, <br />analysis, and technical report preparation. <br /> <br />Social-Economics <br /> <br />The project area has historically been agricultural in nature <br />although it is experiencing rapid growth due to coal, gas, and oil shale <br />development. <br /> <br />The most significant short-term social-economic impacts are attri- <br />buted to plan 3 which has a peak employment of 1,169 people while plan 9 <br />would have an employment peak of 675 people. The most significant effect <br />resulting from this influx would be on local schools whose capacity may <br />not be adequate for the construction period. Thirty or forty people <br />would be relocated from the reservoir basins under plans 3 and 9. <br /> <br />Tabular Summary <br /> <br />The effects of the candidate plans on environmental quality are <br />summarized in Table S-3. <br /> <br />be <br />