My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36281
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36281
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:41:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/18/1998
Doc Name
RESPONSED TO BLM ISSUES WITH THE COMMERCIAL MINE PLAN
From
AMERICAN SODA
To
BLM WITH COPY PROVIDED 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.
/
45
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
98. Section 8.13.4.3 -Safes and use tax revenues are not specified. <br />To date, American Soda has not selected vendors in Rio Blanco or Garfield Counties <br />to supply the future commercial operation with materials, hence the lack of <br />projections for sales and use tax revenue. It is likely that some purchasing activity <br />will occur in the local coznties, but the specifics of what and how much aren't <br />known at this time. As a result, this has been presented as a general fiscal impact o n <br />the counties. It is unlikely that American Soda will be able to furnish this <br />information for the EIS. <br />Environmental Justice <br />99. Do the communities impacted by the proposed project have any minority populations <br />residing and/or working within them? Could this project alter or change the current percentages? <br />The areas that will be impacted by the project are sparsely populated in general, and <br />the ranching populations near the project facilities are almost entirely white. Based <br />on review of 1990 census data, ethnic minority populations do exist in the local <br />communities, but they make up a very small percentage of the overall population <br />(see http://www.dlg.oem2.state.co.us/demog/race.ktm). There do not appear to be <br />concentrated communities, neighborhoods, or areas inhabited by minority groups. <br />There is no indication that the project will adversely impact either low-income <br />populations or ethnic minorities residing in communities in Rio Blanco or Garfield <br />Counties. <br />It is difficult to predict if the project will change the racial composition of local <br />communities, although it is hard to imagine how this might occur. The project will <br />not have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income <br />populations. <br />Land Use <br />100. Will either the project azea or current mining panel be fenced? <br />As described in Section 8.14.1, only the Piceance Site processing plant area and the <br />evaporation pond will be fenced. Public access will be restricted from active mining <br />panels/well fields primarily throi~gli posting of signs and through gating mine <br />access roads. The primary interest here is public safety and protection of mine <br />equipment. Wildlife and wild horses will not be fenced out of active mining areas, <br />although, for their protection, they will 6e excluded from the evaporation pond. <br />37 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.