Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />Without devel~pment, 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 $541,000 with development <br />of 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, quality of the region. Activities during <br />construction would generate fugitive dust emissions and mobile <br />source air emissions. Dust may be generated during certain <br />phases of construction; 'motor vehicles and other construction <br />equipment would emit exhaust pollutants. <br /> <br />Operation of the facility would offset emissions of S02, NOx, and <br />C02. For alternative C, these offsets are anticipated to average <br />825; 1,375; and 412,500 tons per year, respectively. For other <br />alternatives, the offsets would be slightly lower. <br /> <br />within the operational areas of the powerplant, the noise levels <br />would conform to safe levels as established by Occupation and <br />Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. Outside the plant, the <br />only constant and appreciable noise source would be the <br />transformers. Vehicular traffic would pe infrequent. <br />Construction noise would result but would be short term and <br />restricted to the period between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Cumulative Impacts <br /> <br />To more accurately describe impacts of the development alter- <br />natives, future river operations have been projected under the <br />nO-action alternative. The effects of upstream reservoirs of the <br />Aspinall Unit and the Dallas Creek Project have been estimated so <br />that total impacts of the AB Lateral Facility on the river <br />systems can be seen. <br /> <br />Cumulatively, the impacts of reduced flows in the Gunnison River <br />and the resultant increased opportunity for hike-in human,use <br />would result in both the reduction and increase of some of the <br />values that make the area attractive. This could result in more <br />restrictive management practices being instituted by the National <br />Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. <br /> <br />A number of other projects upstream from the Aspinall Unit are <br />being considered. These include transmountain diversions to the <br />eastern slope of Colorado. The feasibility of these proposals is <br />directly affected by Colorado water law. If any of the <br /> <br />S - 10 <br />