2006-06-14_REVISION - M1978314 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

offsite mitigation etratogia." Unfortunatoly, King Mountain's final application did not include any offiite atratagia. Ae such, King Mountain's mitigation strategies fall woaftrlly abort of meeting those suggested by DOW. b. Conservation sad PrrroeRV Values The proposed gravel pit expansion tits v boated near property on which the Rocky Moutttaia Ells Foundation holds a conservation Egoris Perk is a unique eras, with minimal traffic, few residential properties, and working ranches that are managed on a landscape scale. Likewise, a~jacont rancher grsatod a ooasarvstioa easement to Colorado Open Leads. Plnelly, Qreat Outdoors Colorado and Colorado Open Leads hold other conservation easements In the Topanes area for the preservation of significant ecological sad wildlife habitat. As a result, the conservation values within the area are very high. The proposed gravel pit axpaasion, together with sigaificaatly increased traffic and corresponding dust and other pattictilata, sad the likely decrease is wildlife usage in the area, will inevitably coatpromise the conservation value of the various easements held by the Slit Fouadatioa and other conservation and environmental organizstiow. Millions of dollars of 3tata Eustis ere currently proposed m bo epoat immediately adjacent to the pit to preserve (}rouse habitat. c. Traoeoortation and Safety Conaams King Mountain's cmreat operation hen two access points on County Road 3 (GR 3). The short section of that toed (utilized by the gravel pit) is very steep with grades up to 19%, a recognizable hazard. Due m the topography of the area, those grades teener be aQjueted without a road relocation. The steep grade on CR 3 at its intersection with County Road S (CR S) ie a serious safety pmblan due to truck tratHc associated with the operation. There are very limited sight distances to see trucks or visa vans before as intersection, around corsets, prior to onalme bridges eta.. It L very dangerous. The project proposed by King Mountain will involve s aigaifiea~ amourrt of haul traf8e sad a signiicant inaroeae in truck traffic geaeraUy, At a minimum, it appears that as expsaalon of King Mountain's gravel mine will add s volume of approximately 160 vehicles per day during the peak mining months. Combined with the tnt®o volume already traveling CR 3 sad CR S, approximately 350 truob (plus 30 taro) will be using those roads daily. Ia their current wadltion, the existing reeds simply censor support that Increased level of tragic. Furthermore, rho intersection of CR 3 and CR S poses a serious safety concern. With respect to all throe approaches to the intersection, sight distance is very limited. The north leg of the intersection on CR 3 has a steep, 1896, grade on its approach. Trucks crawl down this grade at very low speeds Despite those low speeds, it I: questionable whether those truclu ere able to stop for oncoming traffic. With the forecasted Increased volume of truck activity that will result if rho Board approves King Mountain's Permit Coavorsion Application, the safety concerns at this i~enectioa (end elortg rite made generally) are mbetaadally 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 s child ride a horse on these made. Finally, there aro two bridges along the mute with only single lases. The pit operator, Kirk Eberle, does sot weal to pay to replace the bridge and, instead, wants taxpayers to subsidize hie gravel operatioae. Effectively, Mr. Eberle is attempting to we six tnilas of county mad at a mine "haul road."