My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL49886
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL49886
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:29:41 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 5:30:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/19/1999
Doc Name
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CHAPTER 5 6 & 7
From
STEIGERS CORP
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />CNAPTERFIVE <br />Cumullatiue Impacts <br />cumulative effects aze considered to be a significant impact due to the large azea of relatively <br />undisturbed land surrounding the sites that will still provide for sufficient grazing; and hunting <br />opportunities. The various gas pipelines that aze scattered across the cumulative caffects area (the <br />azea shown on Figure 5-1) have little effect on grazing or hunting. The potential for oil and gas <br />development does not appeaz to be at a level that there would be concerns about the cumulative <br />effects to irrigated agriculture, hunting, grazing, or other mineral development. <br />5.13 VISUAL RESOURCES <br />The cumulative effect of other existing or proposed projects is starting to have an effect on the <br />overall chazacter of the landscape in some of the areas between the Piceance and Parachute Sites. <br />Although still located in a mostly natural appearing landscape, the White River 1`fahcolite and the <br />proposed Yankee Gulch projects would combine to create an industrial appeazanc;e in sections of <br />the plateau above Piceance Creek. <br />The numerous pipeline crossings and facilities associated with pipelines (e.g. meter stations) <br />along the Piceance Creek Road aze becoming more noticeable, as aze the numerous pipelines and <br />other industrial facilities in the Parachute Valley. <br />5.14 SOCIOECONOMICS <br />During the 1980s and 1990s, Rio Blanco and Garfield counties experienced cumulative <br />economic impacts associated with mining, oil shale development, natural gas exploration, and <br />construction of gas pipelines. Because of the growth in the oil shale industry in ttie 1970s and <br />early 1980s (and the subsequent slowdown), the infrastructures of some project area <br />communities were over-built. That excess capability in such areas as potable water, wastewater <br />treatment and fire protection would be sufficient to accommodate the Yankee Gulch workforce. <br />The population growth in recent years has also resulted in some negative socioea~nomic effects. <br />For example, Garfield County school enrollments aze currently neaz capacity, and some schools <br />may have to be expanded or children bussed to other districts in the next few yea~•s. Industrial <br />development in the project area has also resulted in a limited housing supply. Adverse <br />cumulative social impacts could be experienced by some residents who feel that continuing <br />energy development has disrupted the local quality of life. In addition, some may perceive a loss <br />of privacy. Others in the region may feel threatened by a loss of control associated with large, <br />federally approved projects. <br />5.15 TRANSPORTATION <br />Because past industrial development in the project azea has been geographically dispersed, <br />cumulative level of service (LOS) traffic effects have generally not been significant. However, <br />some cumulative traffic impacts have occurred with the creation of secondary and unpaved <br />roads, necessary for oil and gas distribution systems. <br />5-8 <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.