Environmental Impact Statement for Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project

Page 48

Estimates of the particulate levels that would be unavoidable if the proposed power plant were built are presented in Table 2. Estimates of the reductions in visibility (viewing distance) caused by the particulate discharge are presented in Table 4. Modeling studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate that operation of the proposed power plant would cause visibility to be reduced from 60 to 30 miles 40 percent of the time. Visibility is presently limited to 30 miles less than 1 percent of the time. Figure 3 is a photograph of a view from Zion National Park on July 10, 1976. Figures 4 to 6 are photographic visual simulations indicating how the same view would appear with operation of the proposed power plant under varying weather conditions. c. Despite salvage operations, construction of the proposed plant would result in the loss of 10 archaeological sites (seven chipping areas, two transient campsites, and one rock shelter). Subsurface archaeological sites may also be lost. Although none of the sites meets the criteria for eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, the potential for future study by scientists would still be lost. The 10 archaeological sites could be lost or damaged due to vandalism even without construction of the proposed project. Considerable vandalism is presently occurring in the area and large numbers of sites are being destroyed or damaged by artifact collectors. d. The influx of 4,000 additional people into the region would create a shortage of permanent housing units during the construction of the proposed plant (6 years). The estimated shortages of new permanent housing units would occur at Mil ford, Minersville, Beaver, and other parts of Beaver County, and at Cedar City in Iron County. Construction workers would have the greatest difficulty finding suitable permanent housing, and existing residents living in rented housing would have difficulty retaining suitable permanent housing. Projected estimates, using the UPED model, indicate the shortage of 600 to 700 permanent housing units during the second year of con­struction (Figure 2). This shortage would mean that many construction workers and their families would initially live (for 1 to 6 years) in temporary housing units or in fringe settlements outside existing communities. Temporary housing is normally substandard and the people living in such dwellings generally do not enjoy the standard of living equal to their income. A degraded quality of life can occur for such residents of fringe settlements. It has been noted in other instances that people who live in fringe settlements tend to participate less in community activities and become less a part of the community (Doe, 1975). Some "temporary housing" would con­tinue to be used on a permanent basis. 32