2006-06-14_REVISION - M1978314 (2)

Home Browse Search

offsite, mitigation strategies." Unfortunately, King Mountain's $na] application did not include any offsite strategies. As such, King Mountain's mitigation strategies fall woefully short of meeting those suggested by DOW. b. Conservation and Property Values The proposed gravel (rit expansion site is located near property on which the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation holds a conservation. Egeria Pazk is a unique azea; with minimal .traffic, few residential properties, and working ranches that aze.managed on a landscape scale. Likewise, adjacent ranchers granted a conservation easement to Colorado Open Lands, Finally, Great Outdoors Colorado. and Colorado Open Lands hold other conservation easements in the Topanas azea for the preservation of significant ecological and wildlife habitat. As a result, the conservation values within the area are very high. -The proposed gravel pit expansion; together with significantly increased traffic and corresponding dust and other particulates, and the likely decrease in wildlife usage in the area, will' inevitably compromise the Conservation value 'of the various easements held by the Elk Foundation and' other conservation and environrnen4al organizations. Millions of dollazs of State funds are currently proposed to be spent immediately adjacent to the pit to preserve Grouse habitat. c. - Transportation and Safety Concerns King Mountain's current operation has two access points on County Road 3 (CR 3). The short section of that road (utilized by the gravel pit) is very steep with grades up to 19%, a recognizable hazard. Due to the topography of the area, those grades cannot be adjusted without a road relocation. The steep grade on GR3 at its intersection with County Road 5 (CR 5) is,a serious safety problem due to truck traffic associated with the operation. There are very limited sight distances to see trucks or visa versa before an intersection, azound comers, prior to ono-lane bridges etc.. It is very dangerous. The project proposed by King Mountain will involve a significant amount of haul traffic and a significant increase in~truck traffic generally. At a minimum, it appears that an expansion of King Mountain's gravel mine will add a volume of approximately 160 vehicles per day during the peak mining months. Combined with the traffic volume already traveling CR 3 and CR 5, approximately 350 trucks (plus 30 cazs) will be using thoseroads daily. In their current condition, the existing roads simply cannot support that increased level of traffic. ~ " Furthermore, the intersection of CR 3 and CR 5 poses a serious safety concern. With respect to all three approaches to the intersection, sight distance is very limited. The north leg of the intersection on CR 3, has a steep, 18%, grade on its approach. Trucks crawl down this grade at very low speeds. Despite those low speeds, it is questionable whether those trucks are able to stop for oncoming traffic. With the forecasted increased volume of truck activity that will result if the Boazd approves King Mountain's Permit Conversion Application, the safety.concems at this intersection (and along the roads generally) are substantially amplified. With a large volume of gravel trucks, it would be extremely dangerous to try to pull a horse trailer, move cattle, drive a tractor or let a child ride a horse on these roads. Finally, there are.two bridges along the route with only single lanes. The pit operator, Kirk Eberle, does not want to pay to replace the bridges and, instead, wants taxpayers to subsidize his gravel operations. Effectively, Mr. Eberle is attempting to use six miles of county road as a mine "haul road."