Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-12- <br />• estimates were based on a much larger operation getting underway socner with <br />several hundred employees. During the current low level of operations on the <br />Loma Project, public revenues generated by only 15 employees already residing <br />ir. Mesa County would be negligible. <br />Fifteen varied energy development projects were anticipated in the Grand <br />Junction impact area by 1985, according to a Mesa County Capital Improvements <br />Program prepared in March, 1981. County population and employment were <br />projected to grow an additional 20 to 50 percent without considering the Loma <br />Project. Extensive capital improvements were planned by Mesa County, affected <br />towns and School District 51 to prepare for anticipated growth. Funding <br />assistance (from impact funds, grants, etc.) are expected from outside sources <br />as well as local sources such as property and sales taxes. Because of the <br />extensive nature of required capital improvements and disparities in funding <br />between the two counties, deficits appear inevitable for many jurisdictions in <br />Mesa County; especially in view of depleted oil shale funding and uncertain <br />Federal grants. <br />In and of itself, continuation of the low level of operations on the Loma <br />Project will not cause any immediate, significant adverse socio-economic <br />impact on Mesa County and other local entities. When compared to the overall <br />growth trend in Mesa County, the current impact of the Loma Project is minor. <br />If full scale production is to resume, the Mesa County Planning Commission <br />will require an updated review of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts. Full <br />production plans call for an eventual workforce of 900 employees. At that <br />• level, impacts on the Fruita/Grand Junction area could be overwhelming without <br />advance preparation--particularly on School District 51. <br />Under terms of the five-year permit application, 149,000 tons of coal are <br />expected to be produced in the first year, accelerating to 847,000 tons in the <br />fifth year. If the coal market supports this virtual five-fold increase, a <br />substantial expansion in the workforce would also appear necessary. Under <br />these circumstances, an updated preview of cumulative socioeconomic impacts on <br />the Fruita/Grand Junction area would be essential. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE N0. 2 - OSM DISAPPROVAL OF PERMIT <br />APPLICATION <br />If this alternative were adopted, mining would be precluded, at least <br />temporarily, until an approvable plan is submitted, on the entire proposed <br />permit area since all coal is Federally owned. The mining impacts described <br />for the "Environmental Impacts of Alternative No. 1" section of this document <br />would not occur, the recovery of a valuable mineral resource would be <br />prevented temporarily or permanently, and no jobs due to the opening of the <br />mine would not be created. <br />• <br />