My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 (39)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2008086
>
2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 (39)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:23:08 PM
Creation date
3/11/2008 12:37:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2008086
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/22/2008
Doc Name
PDEIS Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation
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.
/
143
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
CHAPTERFOUR Environmental Consequences and Mitigation <br />levy in western Garfield County. This amount is about 5 percent of the tota12003 property tax <br />revenue collected by Garfield County and the school district that taxes property in the area of the <br />Red Cliff Mine. The property tax revenue due Mesa and Garfield Counties on the equipment and <br />facilities, including the rail spur, cannot be estimated because no information on the value of the <br />facilities is available. <br />Sales taxes are imposed in Mesa County by the state, the county, and the incorporated <br />communities in the Grand Valley. Revenues to all these jurisdictions would increase because of <br />the additional business and consumer expenditures generated by the proposed action. Since the <br />direct and indirect economic activity attributable to the mine makes up less than a 1 percent <br />addition to the economy of Mesa County, the increased sales tax revenue would be marginal. <br />Mesa County and jurisdictions within the county would indirectly receive benefit of the <br />severance taxes and federal royalties paid by the Red Cliff Mine. Jurisdictions within the county <br />receive a direct payment equal to 15 percent of the Severance Tax Local Impact Fund's 50 <br />percent share of the severance tax, based on the residency of mine employees. At peak <br />production, that would be an annual payment equal to $137,700. Additionally, jurisdictions in <br />Garfield County would receive a share of the federal royalties distributed to the state. That share <br />has been increasing in the last few years (as the total amount of royalties received by the state <br />increases) and has averaged about 411 percent the last 2 years. At that percentage, Garfield <br />County jurisdictions would receive a total of about $850,000 annually. The combined severance <br />and federal royalty payments that would go annually to jurisdictions in the two counties is <br />estimated at $982,500. This amount is about 5 percent of the total resource-related revenue <br />received by Mesa and Garfield Counties in 2003. <br />A sizeable portion of the severance tax and federal mineral royalty receipts is placed in the Local <br />Government Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance Program. The funds administered by this <br />program are made available to communities impacted by mineral development. Both Mesa <br />County and communities within the county would be eligible to receive grants and loans through <br />this program to help address impacts produced by the proposed action. <br />Environmental Justice <br />As described in the environmental justice section of Chapter 3, the environmental justice <br />requirement of Executive Order 12898 is that "Federal agencies identify and address <br />disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including the <br />socioeconomic effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and <br />low-income populations." Minority populations in this context are Hispanic, African-American, <br />American Indian, Asian, or Pacific Islander populations that either a) exceed 50 percent in the <br />affected area or b) are meaningfully of greater percentage than in the general population. Low- <br />income populations are those whose incomes fall below the federally defined poverty threshold <br />(CEQ 1997). <br />As discussed in Chapter 3, the percentage of minorities within the study area does not exceed <br />50 percent and is substantially lower than the percentage in the State of Colorado as a whole. <br />Consequently, the proposed project would not disproportionately affect minority populations as <br />defined. The percentage of the population that falls below the poverty level in the study area is <br />not meaningfully higher than the percentage for the State of Colorado as a whole. In addition, <br />because very few people live in or near the project area, no minority or low-income populations <br />have been identified that would experience common conditions of environmental exposure or <br />4-20 <br />DBMS 575 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.