My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04648
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04648
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:14:59 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:30:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.131.J
Description
Yellow Jacket Project
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1966
Title
Water Quality Control Study of the Yellow Jacket Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />o <br />- <br />0.1 <br />N <br /> <br />1960 with a value of $4,800,000. The ore mineral in the area contains <br />a very low percentage of uranium oxide and no vanadium is produced as <br />a joint product as is the case in ores worked in adjacent areas. This <br />plant cannot be op2rated economically at less than 75 percent of capacity, <br />and with the reduction in the AEC procurement program it is currently <br />idle. Prospects for the future depend on numerous factors. At present <br />the only market for uranium is the Federal Government, and its needs-- <br />primarily military--are pretty well saturated. Use for power generation <br />depends on technological developments bringing down the price. It has <br />been estimated that nuclear power will becGme an important source of <br />electrical power by 1980. If so, this industry may again become important <br />in the economy of the study area. The uranium industry was one of the <br />largest water users in the area. In 1960, 184,000,000 gallons were used, <br />or about 307 gallons per pound of concentrate produced. <br /> <br />The manufacturing component of this economy as a proportion of the <br />total labor force has not changed significantly in the past twenty years, <br />and remains materially less important than this activity is elsewhere as <br />seen in Figure 4. Only 212 workers were employed in manufacturing in 1960. <br />There were 28 establishments producing lumber and wood products only four <br />of which employed 20 people or more, and 11 which produced food and kindred <br />products, all of them quite small. <br /> <br />The share of employment in trade and services is comparable to that <br />in the State and Nation. nowever, a study by the University of Colorado, <br />Bureau of Business Research, indicated that nearly 15 percent of the re- <br />tail spending by residents of the area is done at larger communities <br />outside the region. <br /> <br />The region is s'Jmewhat off the main transportation routes. It is <br />served by just one U. S. Highway, U. S. 40, which bisects the area in an <br />east-west direction. This highway is not being made a part of the National <br />Interstate and Defense HighwdY System. The Denver and Rio Grande Western <br />Railroad has a spur line serving the eastern third of the area. This line, <br />originally built as the Denver and Salt Lake Railway, follows the Yampa <br />River to Steamboat Springs and has its terminus at Craig. It is the im- <br />portant link between the coal fields of the Upper Yampa and Denver, the <br />major market for coal from this area. The D & RGW has been trying for <br />some years to abandon passenger service on this line. <br /> <br />Recreation is an important and growing activity. Big game hunting <br />here is among the Nation's best, Non-resident hunters in the area in <br />1960 came from all 50 states, Austria, Canada, and Mexico. They out- <br />numbered resident big game sportsmen 5:1 in elk hunting and 8:1 in deer <br />hunting. A total of 6,894 elk hunters and 28,002 deer hunters entered <br />the area in 1960. The average seasonal expenditure for the non-resident <br />hunter was: elk-$387.50, and deer-$295.67. For resident hunters the <br />comparable expenditure was: elk-$118.54, and deer-$84.55. The total <br />expenditure of people hunting big game in the area was $5,643,959, of <br />which $2,548,736 was spent in the area, $3,095,223 was spent outside the <br />area. The total contribution to the area's economy in direct and indirect <br /> <br />-19- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.