Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> skill as a matter of precise engineering in the way that highway or building construction <br /> must be, in large part because we cannot accurately know subsurface conditions until we <br /> strip and excavate. <br /> As with the DRMS comments, responded to above, the present mining and reclamation <br /> plan adequately address current problems with drainage, erosion, discharge, and <br /> sedimentation,prevent similar problems during mining, and with or without the realignment <br /> of Kleckner Lane, prevent such problems in the future. The Preparer's observations of the <br /> site and drainage during and after precipitation events and with and without irrigation flows <br /> differ from Mr. Dilione's but this is natural and should not be deemed as a lack of <br /> professionalism on either part. In addition, the conditions along Kleckner Lane and <br /> between it and the bridge indicate that conditions have changed significantly at various <br /> times in the past. As stated above, one objective of this project is to "clean up"previous <br /> attempts to prevent/contro/ erosion and both high-grading of rock and dumping of <br /> materials. The mining and reclamation plans provide the necessary information and <br /> planning to do so. We appreciate Mr. Dilione's comments and his photographs, added to <br /> those previously provided to DRMS. <br /> (4) Exhibit B p 11 2nd Discussion of SE corner and drainage - <br /> Response: This is restating what is shown but incorrectly stating "all drainage south of <br /> Kleckner Lane"-Mitigation measures ARE already included in the mining and reclamation <br /> plans and further elaborated on in the response to CPW (See Section 4.2). Per <br /> conversations between Mr. Lucas West (DRMS), Mr. Peter Foote (CPW) and Nathan <br /> Barton, preparer, the CPW is willing to waive this recommended 500-foot exclusion zone <br /> provided there is adequate protection to prevent surface water with sediment from entering <br /> the Piedra River, and since there is not drilling and blasting. See Sections 4.2 and 5.2. <br /> County General Comment 4) restates Mr. Dilione's objection to DRMS and also cites the <br /> CPW comments. County Specific Comment 5) further elaborates drainage and wetland <br /> issues. <br /> Response: These objections on drainage are answered above. The comments on wildlife <br /> added to the County comments are stated and responded to in Section 3.42. To briefly <br /> restate, the information in the application was taken from data and maps provided by the <br /> US Fish and Wildlife Service. It was not until follow-up with CPW and their comment letter <br /> (Section 4.2) that CPW explained where their maps were located so that we could see <br /> CPW's delineation of the winter concentration area and nearby migration paths. These <br /> are identified only for elk and not for deer. Note please that no determination of status of <br /> the wetlands in the SE corner of the permit area or those possibly in the bar ditch of Piedra <br /> Road or located near the bridge and the Piedra River is required as the project does NOT <br /> propose any fill or other disturbance of those locations. <br /> (5) Utilities easements - states that easement must be abandoned before land can be <br /> used. - No work allowed on/in utilities easements unless abandoned/vacated. <br /> Response: This is incorrect:multiple operations in nearby counties have mining operations <br /> in and around utilities easements, with suitable restrictions to protect easement and <br /> access. We are unaware of any prohibition on work in an easement for a utility unless it <br /> damages the structure or denies access. Both Lumen (CenturyLink) and LPEA have <br /> allowed mining activities on their easements in several locations in Archuleta and La Plata <br /> Counties. He presents a "what-if'that is not germane. <br /> Response: Section 5.1 <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 17 of 107 <br />