Laserfiche WebLink
. MLRB <br />July 26, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />M <br />Dust Abatement: Conditions on permits for the existing mines require <br />that virtually everything at the pits be watered to control dust. During <br />much of the year this would require frequent watering. Yet I have never <br />seen any watering at the pits nor have I ever talked to anyone who has. <br />(My personal observations are limited to primarily the 32 Road Pit <br />because it can be seen from the highway.) Can you still determine if <br />they conducted this watering as required, and if so, did they? How did <br />they get sufficient water for the 32 Road Pit if they just obtained a <br />water right in May 1992, six years after they started operation? Is this <br />water right sufficient for the new proposal? Are water rights for the 31 <br />Road Pit sufficient for the new proposal? Does the water right for <br />pumping water from the Colorado River allow for industrial uses on a <br />year-round basis? <br />Haul Route Safety: Both of the new proposals would be for high use, long <br />term projects. I question whether the haul routes would be safe for <br />public use. The C Road/haul road intersection for the 31 Road Pit is <br />located immediately below the crest of a hill on C Road. Gravel truck <br />drivers have routinely run the stop sign at this intersection in the <br />past. At the recent Mesa County hearings on this project, a Mesa County <br />highway person stated that this intersection was "marginal". However he <br />followed that written statement up quickly with another letter that said <br />the stop sign at the intersection should be removed and replaced with a <br />yield sign. Something smells fishy. <br />Since this intersection would receive large volumes of heavy truck <br />traffic for a long time, if the intersection is marginal for public <br />safety then the intersection should be moved. Also, aren't yield signs <br />intended for use at intersections where the driver can clearly see <br />traffic on the road he is entering? <br />The C Road/32 Road intersection for the 31 Road Pit is located at the <br />crest of a hill. This is another marginal situation because the driver <br />pulling onto 32 Road has a limited sight distance to see traffic going 55 <br />mph coming up the hill. <br />The Colorado Highway Department recomoended that the C 1/2 Road/32 Road <br />intersection for the 32 Road Pit be moved for public safety reasons when <br />that project was originally being permitted. That intersection was never <br />moved but the question of public safety still remains. <br />ESccessive Haulage: Mesa County recently approved use at the 31 Road Pit <br />for up to 100 trucks per day. I objected to this and stated a number of <br />times that we had lived with 100 trucks per day before and that this <br />volume completely overwhelmed our neighborhood. Ewen the Mesa County <br />Planning Department staff recormnended a lower truck traffic volume than <br />this. The applicant stated that he needed such a heavy volume to have an <br />economically viable project. Can the MLRD determine if this statement is <br />correct? If he can have an economically viable project with less <br />traffic, I and many neighbors would, request that truck traffic be <br />reduced to the Mesa County recommendation of 60 trucks per day with 120 <br />trucks per day allowed for 10 days. <br />Sincerely, <br />„/ vU~~ . ~vn.~ktcQ <br />