Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />WILD RIVER - WILDERNESS STUDY AREA <br />. .~ . - . <br /> <br />A 'portion of the Gunnison River 'downstream from the Tunnel has <br />'been determined to be eligible as a wild'river under the 'Wild and <br />Scenic Rivers'System. A BLM wilderness study area borders the <br />river downstream 'from the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National <br />Monument. Under the no-action alternative, these areas may be <br />designated by Congress as both a wild river and a wilderness <br />area; they would remain eligible under development conditions <br />according toNPS and BLM, although some resources would be <br />adversely affected; atcordlrig" to these agencies. <br /> <br />SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS' <br /> <br />Without development, the economy of the Montrose-Delta area would <br />continue to be dependent upon agriculture,' tourism, and light <br />industry. with the development al ternati ves, 'local employmEmt <br />opportunities would increase during construction. Operation of <br />the facility would be expected to produce, annual tax revenues to <br />Montrose County of $400,000. Operating revenues to the UVWUA <br />would be expected to range between $150,000 and $300,000 in the <br />,first year of operation, escalating each year thereafter to more <br />than $1 million in the year 2008. ' ' <br /> <br />Without development, rafting use along the Gunnison River would <br />be expected to average approximately $31l~000annually of direct <br />expenditures. With development of alternatives 'B, E,'or F,' these <br />expenditures would be reduced to about $21'4,'000 ann'ually, or to <br />$237,000 with development of alternative C. <br /> <br />Without development, the estimated expenditures attributed to <br />hike-in fishing to the Gunnison River would be about $446,000. <br />This value would increase to about $507,000 with development of <br />alternatives B, E,'or, F and to about $541~OOO with development of <br />alternative C. <br /> <br />AIR QUALITY AND NOISE <br /> <br />Operation of the facility would have little, if any, adverse <br />impact on the air"qUalityof the region: Activities during <br />construction would generate fugitive dust emissions and mobile <br />source air eniissions. 'Dust maybe generated during'certain <br />phases' of construction. Motor vehicles and other construction <br />equipment would emit exhaust pollutants. <br /> <br />Operati'on of the facility would offset emissions of SO" NO., and <br />CO,. For alternativeE,these offsets are anticipated to average <br />740, 1,235, and '234,000 tons' per 'year , respectively" For other <br />alternat'ives,the offsets would'be 'slightly higher:' <br /> <br />s- 13 <br />