2006-06-12_REVISION - M1978314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fftita mitigation strategies:' Unfortunately, King Mountain's final application did not include any offsite strategies. Ae such, King Mountain's mitigation strategies fall woeflrlly short of meeting those ~ suggested by DOW. b. Conservation sad Pronertv Valuos The proposed gravel pit expansion tits is located near property on which the Rocky Mountain Ells Foundation holds a conservation. Egorie Park is a unique area, with minimal traffic, few residential properties, and working ranches that are managed on a laadxape scale. Likewlae, adjacent ranchos granted a conservation easement to Colorado Open Lands. Finally, Oroat Outdoors Colorado sad Colorado Open Lands hold other conservation easements in the Topanas aroa for Wo preservation of sigaificent ecological and wildlife habitat. ?-s a result, the conservation values within the area are very high. The proposed gravel pit expansion, together with significantly increased trafc and corresponding dust and other particulates, and the likely decrease in wildlife usage in the arse, will inevitably compromise the conservation value of the various easements held by the Elk Foundation and other:conservation and environmental organizations. Millions of dollar of State funds am curready proposed to be spent immediately adjacent to the pit to preserve (arouse habitat. c, Transportation and Safety Concerns King Mountain's current opestion has two access pouts oa County Road 3 (CR 3). The short section of that road (utilized by the gravel pit) is very steep witit grades up to 19%, a recognizable hazard. Due to the topography of the area, those grades cannot be adjusted without a mad relocation. The steep grade on CR 3 at its intersection with County Road 5 {CR S) is a serious safety problem due to truck traffic associated with rho opestion. There are very limited sight distances to see ttuaks or visa vase before en intasoction, around comes, prior to one-land bridges etc.. It is very dangerous. The project proposed by King Mountain will involve a significant amount of haul traffic and a aigni$ca~ increase is truck trafilc generally, At a minimum, it appear that as 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 cars) will be using those roads daily. In their cumattt 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 intesecdon, sight distance is very limited. The north leg of the intersection oa CR 3 has a steep, I8%, grade on its approach. Trucks crawl down this grade at very law speeds. Despite those low speeds, it is questionable whether those trucks are able to stop for oncoming traffic. With the forecasted increased volume of track activity that will result if rho Board approves King Mountain's Permit Conversion Application, the safety concerns at this interaction (sad along the roads generally) are aubataatially ampliSed. With a large volume of gravel trucks, it would be extremely dangerous to try to pull a horse trailer, move eattiq drive a tractor or let a child ride a hose on these roads. Finally, there aro 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 taxpayer to subsidize his gravel opestions. Effectively, Mr. Eberle ie attempting to use six miles of county road ae a rniae "haul road."