2006-12-18_REVISION - M1978314 (3)

Home Browse Search

King Mountain Sand and Gravel Mine Ecological Resources Assessment Page 17 grouse, both on-site and off-site impacts. The objections also reference conservation easements granted by area property owners. This objection implies [ha[ when a given land owner makes a private decision to grant a conservation easement, this private action is binding upon all other property owners located within an unspecified distance of the grantor's property, and that this private action becomes a public policy issue [ha[ trumps all other property rights considerations. Viewed objectively, [his attitude appears contrary to the private, independent ethic that inspires private land conservation action, as one of the key principles of private land conservation is respect for private property rights. None of [he objections effectively acknowledge the mitigation measures suggested by CDOW, and subsequently incorporated into the wildlife mitigation plan proposed by King Mountain Gravel, LLC (Appendix 4). None of the objections address the availability of gravel supplies in southern Routt County. Dr. Clait E. Braun submitted a declaration, dated June l0, 2006, in opposition to the Project. His declaration does not reference any specific review of the Project proposal, no review of the suggested mitigation by [he CDOW, and no consultations with CDOW. We are not aware that Dr. Braun has ever asked to visit the property or has, in fact, visited the property. His opposition is categorical: "there should be 'a no net loss' of sagebrush policy in all areas where Greater sage grouse populations persist". Further: "Mitigation (on or off site) for planned disturbances has little merit as no mitigation has been demonstrated to be effective in maintaining distribution of abundance of Greater sage grouse". These two statements effectively imply that no changes of any sort could be made anywhere in occupied sage grouse habitat, a habitat found throughout most of the states in the Rocky Mountains and Great Basin. 6.4 Quaternary Gravel Deposits and Sage Grouse Habitat in Southern Routt County Figure 8 displays quaternary gravel deposits mapped by Tweto (1979), overlain with occupied sage grouse habitat based upon NDIS data (CDOW 2006). Most of the gravel deposits are within occupied habitat, and [he remaining deposits are located near occupied habitat. Given that Routt County has used the sage grouse as justification for denial of a gravel mine permit, that CDOW can be expected to aggressively request extensive mitigation measures for any mine in this occupied habitat, that CDOW has acquired a conservation easement on the property to the north of the Project site, and that other conservation easements have been granted on Five Pine Mesa that contain gravel deposits, it can be reasonably determined that it is now virtually impossible to successfully permit gravel mines on these Quaternary deposits in southem RoutY County. This means that gravel will have to be hauled from increasing distances at higher costs, and will likely require the future opening of bedrock quarries on mountain slopes to supply construction aggregates. There will also be increasing pressure to develop the few remaining gravel resources no[ prohibited by conservation easements. Given this situation, several arguments in favor of the King Mountain Sand and Gravel Mine become obvious. 1. It is an existing and operating mine, present for 28 years. 2. The site has proven commercial grade deposits. 3. The area is already impacted by the mining disturbance. 4. The focal sage grouse have demonstrated an ability to adapt to the current mine. In summary, if any gravel is going to be produced from existing Quaternary deposits in south Routt County, the Project site is very likely the site with the least amount of impacts [o the sage grouse. New mines in this area will simply spread impacts to new areas of habitat. Additionally, any other potential mine sites will likely be as close, or even closer, to the objectors properties than [he Project site.