Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTERFOUR Environmental Consequences and Mitigation <br />away that it could be a more likely location for siting future industrial utilities and facilities, <br />such as an overhead transmission line, a pipeline, or warehouses. <br />The changed character of the corridor coupled with the concerns about train noise, safety, dust, <br />and traffic interruptions at CR 10 and CR M 8 would all tend to reduce the number of people <br />who would wish to buy residential property in the corridor, which would in turn reduce the value <br />of properties in the area. A number of studies have confirmed the notion that proximity to a <br />freight railroad tends to reduce property values, by as much as 10 percent of the potential value <br />(Jaouhari and Simons 2004; Bellinger 2006; Strand 2001). These studies indicate that properties <br />in the immediate vicinity of the railroad are most affected, that the downward influence <br />diminishes rapidly with distance, that the amount of train traffic matters, and that train noise and <br />safety are among the factors influencing value. Interviews with appraisers and realtors that have <br />experience in Mesa County confirm these findings, with the caution that the influence on prices <br />is not absolute, and that railroad vicinity property values will still rise if the general direction of <br />property values in the region is upward. (Moore 2008). Permanent impacts are addressed <br />subsequently. <br />Population <br />The proposed action would create both temporary and long-term increases in population in Mesa <br />County. The total population effect depends on the extent to which the new jobs created as a <br />result of the proposed action are filled by new members of the workforce, principally those who <br />have migrated to the area for work. This is a likely scenario given the lower-than-average <br />unemployment rates in Mesa County over the last few years and the possibility that the <br />proponent may prefer to hire experienced underground miners from other areas rather than train <br />local hires. This analysis assumes that all of the new jobs created would result in in-migration <br />and that the local population would increase accordingly. An eventual increase in 486 jobs <br />would result in an estimated 335 new households, representing a population increase of 814. <br />This amounts to 0.6 percent of the county's estimated 2005 population. <br />While it is likely that virtually all of the new population would reside in Mesa County, it's not <br />possible to determine in what communities the population would locate. The majority of the <br />secondary jobs created by the proposed action would be located in the central part of the Grand <br />Valley and people holding these jobs could choose to reside in many different communities, just <br />as the current workforce does. Few locations are more than a 45-minute commute from the <br />central part of the valley. Similarly, the employees of the Red Cliff Mine would be a 15-minute <br />commute along SH 139 to Interstate 70 at Loma, from which point most of the Grand Valley is <br />within 30 minutes driving time. <br />Local Government Facilities and Services <br />As the previous discussion indicates, the maximum population attributable to the proposed action <br />represents a very small increment to the current population of Mesa County. The additional <br />population attributable to the project would thus have a negligible effect on government facilities <br />and services, including domestic water, sewage treatment, emergency services, housing, and <br />social services. <br />There is one possible exception to this general conclusion. As described in Section 3.1.5, <br />schools in the area served by Fruita Monument High School are currently quite crowded. If all <br />of the new employees at the Red Cliff Mine were immigrants to the Grand Valley, and if they all <br />4-18 <br />DBMS 573 <br />