Laserfiche WebLink
o)rage n,oin raragrapn,oin oemence— i nere is a z rvt,conaua inai appears io De eieciricai running <br /> along the east side of the 28'x 80'concrete bridge over the Piedra River.This appears to contradict the <br /> statement in the Application that there are no utilities within 200'of the proposed affected land. needed. <br /> 7)Page 11,6th Paragraph, 1st Sentence—The permit boundary shown on Exhibit A-1 shows the permit <br /> boundary directly adjacent to both the 28'x 80'concrete bridge and the Piedra River. Damage to this structure <br /> would isolate those to the north and greatly hinder emergency services. Potential water and sediments <br /> discharge into the Piedra River should be addressed as part of this Application. <br /> 8)Page 11,7th Paragraph,2nd Sentence—The mining plans will be affected by the joint agreement between <br /> the Texers, Kleckners, USFS and the Hinsdale County Road Department. How can this Application be properly <br /> reviewed knowing that the Application will change due to this future agreement? <br /> 9)Page 12, Item 1 —Both the pit drainage and runoff from Kleckner Lane flows into the Piedra River possibly <br /> contaminating the USFS land and more importantly,the Piedra River. <br /> 10)Page 12, Item 4—According to Exhibits A and A-1,the wetlands delineated in the southeast corner of the <br /> site is within the pit boundary and therefore will be directly affected and should be addressed as part of the <br /> Application. <br /> 11)Page 20, Figure C.3—The main discharge of drainage along the north side of Kleckner Lane doesn't <br /> appear to be addressed.There are two Sediment Basins and both are named Basin#2.The Sediment Basin <br /> south of Kleckner Lane appears to be right where the wetland natural drainageway indicated on Page 4 is <br /> located.The existing culvert shown going under Piedra Road just south of Kleckner Lane discharges onto <br /> USFS land and then directly into the Piedra River.The note"For details of silt fencing,swales, berms,and <br /> outfalls, refer to CDOT plans and specifications is not included in this Application so cannot be reviews for <br /> completeness. <br /> 12)Page 31, Exhibit F.1, Item 4—A similar gravel pit was proposed approximately 3.6 miles north of US 160 off <br /> Piedra Road and the same firm stated that truck traffic was also assumed to be 80%south and 20%north. <br /> Truck traffic for this pit is again assumed to be 80%to the south and 20%to the north. However,this pit is <br /> located at the upper reaches of Piedra Road with the vast majority of houses being at least 10 miles south of <br /> this pit in Archuleta County. From shear houses and population,almost all truck traffic will go south as that is <br /> where the need is.An explanation of these same percentages for two pits,one being 14 miles farther north is <br /> warranted.An explanation for using the same percentages given the location differences to the majority of <br /> potential users should be explained. <br /> 13)Page 31, Exhibit F.1, Item 4—While truck hauling traffic from this site would be directly onto Piedra Road <br /> (FSR-631)in Hinsdale County,virtually all the truck traffic will head south and cross into Archuleta County less <br /> than a quarter mile south of this pit location.The remaining approximate 10 miles will be on Piedra Road or <br /> FSR-631. Is this graveled road designed to handle this truck traffic?Who will pay for the increased <br /> maintenance necessary for this road?The USFS had an agreement with Archuleta County to install mag <br /> chloride on this gravel road. Has this increased traffic and additional maintenance been discussed and agreed <br /> to with Archuleta County if they are still under an agreement with the USFS? <br /> 14)Page 31, Exhibit F.1, Item 4—This indicates that truck hauling will be over a 10-hour period and that since <br /> virtually all the truck traffic will go south on Piedra Road,the trucks will be on Piedra Road at the same time as <br /> the Archuleta County school busses will be. Has this situation been discussed and addressed with the School <br /> District? <br /> 15)Page 31, Exhibit F.1, Item 4—The vast majority of truck traffic will go south into Archuleta County on Piedra <br /> Road and then either continue south on the paved portion of Piedra Road or turn onto North Pagosa Boulevard. <br /> These are very heavily traveled roads for residents as well as people going to and from the San Juan Forest. <br /> The USFS even recognized that Piedra Road was one of the most heavily traveled access roads and provided <br /> a$3.5 Million dollar grant to Archuleta County to reconstruct a paved portion of Piedra Road.What is the traffic <br /> impact on these roads using current traffic counts during the height of our summer tourist season,especially <br /> Piedra Road as no traffic impact study appears to be part of this Application? <br /> 16)Page 31, Exhibit F.1, Item 4—Even without a current traffic impact study,Archuleta County stated in a <br /> Memo dated December 16,2021,from Yari Davis to Pamela Flowers that a similar gravel pit proposed about <br /> 3.6 miles north of US 160 off Piedra Road,would impact their road systems.What is being done to address this <br /> gravel pit's obvious impact to Archuleta County roads? <br />