2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018

Home Browse Search

South Hinsdale Response to Objections 12 July 2022 Mr. Dilione's County General Comments 1) and County Specific Comments 2) - Northwest corner of permit boundary, Upper Piedra Campground -500 feet, Piedra River Trailhead <1,000 feet; negative impact. As discussed above, the proposed permit boundary is NOT"at the Piedra River."There is no Upper Piedra Campground and has not been since 1963, according to the USFS. There is a four-table picnic area now near where the campground had been. (Mr. Dilione did change this to "a few feet from the Piedra River"in his Specific Comment 2). The trailhead is about 1,000 feet to the north-northwest. Although not identified on official maps and documents, the trailhead is recognized by the USFS as a permanent recreation feature maintained by the USFS. Negative impact, if any, will be limited to the viewshed: some(not all) of the operations will be visible from the trailhead but generally not from the picnic ground - and most of the operations visible from the picnic ground will be the realignment and construction of Kleckner Lane. Terrain, including difference in elevation, and vegetation mitigates the view, as does the distance from the trailhead. See Section 5.4.2. Mr. Dilione's County General Comments 3) (see also (1) above) - In addition to general discussion of Piedra Road conditions and standards, Mr. Dilione stated that a $3.5 million grant by the USFS to Archuleta County was given for Piedra Road rebuilding, and that Piedra Road is used "almost exclusively for forest and residential property access." Response:No Archuleta County official we contacted was aware of any$3.5 million grant by the USFS to Archuleta County for Piedra Road. Forest access on Piedra Road includes significant and constant use for heavy hauling for logging operations, ranching operations (agriculture), and road maintenance, as well as rural residences and heavy tourist/visitor traffic(multi-unit vehicles and RVs), as well as commercial deliveries to businesses in the South End and of course areas accessible only off Piedra Road in Archuleta County. Mr. Dilione's County Specific Comment 2) is a restatement of this DRMS comments (15) and (16) addressed later in this Section: Response:please see above. Please note that the proposed affected land is "well away" from the river as compared to both Piedra Road, nearby Taylor Lane, and the continuously affected lands used for parking and fishing/hiking near the bridge, and the picnic area and its parking. The statement is intended to be a relative statement. (3) Exhibit B p 11 -(3a)Discussion of north ravine, drainage, and efforts to control erosion - appears to confuse about drainage to southwest (from SE permit corner) and so conflating with drainage on the north portion of the affected area, which does flow both north and west-southwest. In many ways the entire mining and reclamation plan IS mitigating the erosion in the north from return irrigation flows and some contribution of stormwater runoff from Kleckner Lane. [See also his DRMS comments 4, 5, 9, and 10.] Response: Section 5.2 Mr. Dilione's County Specific Comment 3) elaborates extensively on DRMS Comment 3 and appears to also include parts of DRMS Comment 4 (and seems to duplicate other DRMS and County comments). We appreciate his precision and believe we have answered all his comments and objections. Response: Use of relative terms such as "large" and "small" and "on occasion" are certainly due to differences in experience and the level of detail normally required for a small operation of this type and should not distract from the overall concept of the operation. Surface mining of sand and gravel, and reclamation, are as much an art and 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 16 of 107