|
<br />'''.''''fl
<br />u,~ __ .. "'l: v
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />SUMMARY
<br />
<br />WILD RIVER - WILDERNESS STUDY AREA
<br />
<br />A portion of the Gunnison River downstream from the Tunnel has
<br />~een determined to be eligible as a.wild river under the Wild and
<br />Scenic River,s 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 ~e
<br />designated by Congress as both a wild river and a wilderness
<br />area; they would remain eligible unper development conditians
<br />according'to NPS and ELM, although'some resources would be
<br />adversely affected, according to these agencies.
<br />
<br />-'J
<br />.~
<br />
<br />SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
<br />
<br />,
<br />~
<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 alternatives, local employment
<br />opportunities would increase during construction. Operation of
<br />the facility would be expected ta praduce annual tax revenues ta
<br />Montrase County of $400,000" Operating revenues ta the UVWUA
<br />,would be expected ta range between $150,000'and $300,000 in the
<br />first year .of .operation, escalating each year thereafter to mare
<br />than $1 million in the year 2008.
<br />
<br />:}
<br />,
<br />'~
<br />
<br />-i
<br />
<br />Withaut development, rafting use along the Gunnison River would
<br />be expectedta average approximately $311,000 annually .of direct
<br />expenditures. With development of alternatives B, E, .or F, these
<br />expenditures wauld be reduced ta abaut $274,000 annually, .or to
<br />$237,000 with develapment .of alternative C.
<br />
<br />.;;
<br />
<br />;,
<br />~i
<br />
<br />Without development, the estimated expenditures attributed to
<br />hike-in fishing ta the Gunnison River would be about $446,000.
<br />This value wauld increase ta about $507,000 with development .of
<br />alternatives B, E, or F and ta a~out $541,000 with development of
<br />alternative C.
<br />
<br />j\'
<br />
<br />AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
<br />
<br />Operation of the faCility would have little, if any, adverse
<br />impact an the, air quality of the region, Activities during
<br />construction would generate fugitive dust emissians and mobile
<br />source air emissians. Dust may be generated during certain
<br />phases .of constructian. Motor vehicles and other canstructian
<br />equipment wauld, emit exhaust pollutants.
<br />
<br />Operation .of the facility would .offset emissians .of SO" NO., and
<br />CO" Far alternative E, these offsets are anticipated ta average
<br />740, 1,235,apd 234,000 tons per year, respectively. For ather
<br />alternatives, the .offsets would be slightly higher.
<br />
<br />S - 13
<br />
<br />l~
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.".' ,it .A.."",
<br />
<br />+
<br />~
<br />-,".."-;;
<br />
|