Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> Mr. Dilione's County General Comments 2) and 3) have similar points to this DRMS <br /> comment regarding Piedra Road but also referring to the withdrawn Oakbrush Hill. See <br /> also comments/responses (13)-(15) below. Piedra Road within Archuleta County, <br /> references 16 December 2021 Archuleta County Engineering memo, claims far greater <br /> impact on 18 miles. Claims only a few hundred feet of Piedra Road is in Hinsdale County. <br /> Response:Section 5.3. Mr. Dilione's information is not quite accurate, which is no problem <br /> as we have a complex situation. Therefore, this table is provided to identify distances, <br /> 'urisdiction and ownership of the various se ments of Piedra Road: <br /> Line Designation Distance County Notes <br /> 1 Total SH-160 to SHG Pit 15.8 mi Archuleta/Hinsdale To SW cnr of pit <br /> 2 CR-600 6.2 mi Archuleta Countyjurisdiction <br /> 3 FSR-631 9.4 mi Archuleta USFS urisdiction <br /> 4 FSR-631 0.2 mi Hinsdale USFS jurisdiction <br /> Both the Preparer and Mr. Dilione incorrectly stated the distance as 18 miles and this is <br /> now corrected. Mr. Dilione stated incorrectly that there are 7 miles of paved county road <br /> and 11 miles of unpaved USFS road, with "just a few hundred feet in Hinsdale County." <br /> The above table shows (taken from Archuleta County GIS), the correct distances and <br /> responsibilities. Please note that neither County is responsible for funding nor maintaining <br /> FS Roads. <br /> Mr. Dilione also stated that 10-year-old traffic counts were used by Bechtolt Engineering, <br /> but traffic counts were done by the firm in 2021 as instructed by CDOT. The Archuleta <br /> County Engineering Memo was published BEFORE the Bechtolt Traffic Impact Study <br /> (T1S) was prepared and published, and the County concurred in the findings of the T1S, <br /> which was that there would be no significant impact from the proposed Oakbrush Hill <br /> operation. As discussed in Section 5.3, this proposal is significantly smaller and will <br /> generate far less traffic than that withdrawn proposal, with a different market and therefore <br /> destinations. is located in Hinsdale County between the Countyline and the SW corner of <br /> the affected area. (Approximately 750 feet of Piedra Road is along the western boundary <br /> of the affected area.) <br /> Mr. Dilione's County Specific Comment 1) is a restatement and elaboration of the first <br /> DBMS comment and addressed above. <br /> (2) Exhibit B P 11 —(2) Claims errors and misleading information regarding river distance <br /> and drainage — <br /> Response: Unfortunately, Mr. Dilione did not note the map annotations in the application. <br /> The site (affected land) boundary is near but not in the river, as the river is not located on <br /> the Texer property, according to recorded plats as verified by USFS. (Sometimes various <br /> GIS systems and online data can incorrectly show parcel lines as compared to terrain <br /> features, especially when reproduced in paper and electronic documents.) The northwest <br /> corner (approximately 0.5 acres) is clearly identified as an area of minimal disturbance <br /> and is included specifically to ensure that there is no impact on the Piedra River not just <br /> within the ordinary highwater mark but near it. The only activities in that area (as in the <br /> similar smaller area in the southeast corner) is storm water controls to allow for drainage, <br /> erosion, and sediment controls to prevent discharge of silt or other pollutants into the <br /> wetlands and the river itself. The applicant commits to NOT disturbing any land on NFS <br /> Lands or within the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Piedra River, which we believe to lie <br /> entirely in NFS Land. See Section 5.2 <br /> 5182-22-003 WAtSTELINE, INC. Page 15 of 107 <br />