Laserfiche WebLink
$taadard med engineering demonstrates that the roads will need to be paved to withstaad the <br />increased, heavy truck traffic. <br />Ia general, transportation and rotated safety concerns clearly dictate that changes ba made to the <br />roads, bridges, highway entrances and ways of egress be re a 112 Permit is issued to King Mountain, <br />not aRer. <br />e. Aesthetic and Recreational Concerns <br />Tha donimental effect that an expanded gravel pit will have on the aesthetics of the area <br />surrounding the ranch lands is clear. First, the expanded operation of the gravel pit will cause a <br />substantial increase in noise. Likewise, the forecasted increase in truck (and other vehicular) traffic <br />will inevitably result in increased duet, which will reduce visibility and impair the ability to enjoy the <br />area. <br />Ftom a recreational perspeativa, Egeria Park is heavily used for recreational purposes, <br />inoluding horseback riding, hiking, sluing, eaowmobiliag sad hunting. A gravel pit expansion of the <br />nature proposed by King Mountain will inevitably and adversely affect the aesthetics and recreational <br />use of the roach lands, and Topanas generally. Agricultural land values are very limited. Property <br />values era 3 to 10 times as high as agriculture alone would support -these recreation enhanced land <br />values are lost with increased gravel trucks. <br />f. Water Issues <br />King Mountain does not own indusMal water rights necessary for son-irrigatioa purposes (i.o., <br />operation of an expanded gravel pit under a 112 Permit or to mitigate the impacts of the proposed <br />experision). ~n particular, King Mountain currently uses a pump and flinch pipe to fill water trucks <br />(1500-2000 gallons each) several times a day sear the confluence of Egeria and Smith Creeks for duet <br />suppression. 1n addition, we believe that King Mountain awns the Mersa Ditch water right, decreed <br />for 1 cf~ for irrigation uses, with en adjudication data of November 20, 1890 and an appropriation date <br />of July 18, 1889. Id. If there is a call on Egeria Creek, the undecreed uea would be required to cease <br />as such use would mean that King Mountain is using the water right for industrial purposes for which it <br />is not~decroed. <br />In short, any water right that King Mountain may own cannot be used for its proposed <br />expanded gravel operations until and unless it is changed by the Water Court. And even if the Water <br />Court approves a change in place and type of use, and a change in the point of diversion, Colorado Iaw <br />does not permit a change in the time of use. Acwrdiagly, King Mountain's water rights, in any form, <br />will never be available for use outside the historical irrigation season. <br />~Cing Mountain's Pdar Performance Should Be Considered. <br />Even though on a small scale, King Mountain's prior performance as a gravel pit operator in <br />Routt County indicates that it la not a reliable operator. For instance, King Mountain was using a <br />"temporary pit entrance" as a long-term entrance to the gravel pit, whioh is in an even more dangerous <br />location than the former entrance. Further, in the summer of 2005, King Mountain's employees were <br />