2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018

• Permit No: M2022018
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/18/2022
• Doc Name: Objection Acknowledgement/Response
• From: Wasteline, Inc / South Hindsdale Sand & Gravel LLC
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: LJW
• Email Name: THM
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

South Hinsdale Response to Objections
12 July 2022
County specific comment 6) restates DRMS comment 5.
Response: See above. All local utilities are aware of the proposed operation and have
indicated no need to prohibit operations or vacate the easement. Assuming Kleckner Lane
is realigned, a new utilities easement can be established at that time, and the applicant
commits to doing so.
(6) PVC pipe along east side of bridge — electrical line. Claim of no structures therefore
false.
Response: Information in the application was obtained through Colorado One Call from
local utilities. Reinspection of the bridge was unable to find a PVC pipe or tube but did find
a steel tube or pipe that appears to be part of the guardrail (and is actually in the square
tube (top rail of guardrail). This could be a structural member or a utility but Colorado One
Call (CO-811) and both LPEA and Lumen (CenturyLink) have stated that there are no
utilities west of the cabins on Dancing Wind Ranch, approximately 2,000 feet to the east.
The title company has been contacted, as has the County Clerk and recorder, and the
USFS, to obtain further information regarding the easement and any past or current use.
No information has been found. As stated in several locations, the applicant commits to
regular and frequent coordination with utilities and treat the platted easement as if it were
an actual utility locate, following all procedures as required by Colorado One Call. If any
utilities are found or identified by owners or operators during actual operations, the
applicant will immediately take action to protect the structures and contact and coordinate
with the owners, including requesting a structures agreement or letter and performing an
engineering evaluation to identify the risk to any structures, and actions necessary to
mitigate all potential risks.
Response: Section 5.1
County Specific Comment 7) restates DRMS comment 6.
Response: Same as DRMS above.
(7) Exhibit B p 11 (61h para) [possibly 3 d bullet point?] and Map A-1 NW corner of permit
and property boundary — claim of damage to bridge and discharge into river — dire
consequences. —
Response: There would indeed be dire consequences if this were (a) true and (b) there
was serious threat to either bridge or river. (a) the permit boundary is on the east edge of
the ROW, which according to the 2004 County plat is 60 feet wide. The bridge is
approximately 70 feet from the permit boundary. USFS has been requested to enter into
an indemnity agreement and this will also be addressed in the USFS commercial road
permit which is necessary to operate the pit. The 0.5-acres in the NW corner(see Exhibit
E maps) that is "minimal disturbance"is designed to protect both the bridge and the river
and will not have excavation or construction except as necessary for storm water controls
(best management practices) to protect the river and wetlands by preventing discharge of
sediment. Due to limits on the USFS, the DRMS and County application include an
engineering evaluation that determines that there is no significant negative impact on the
bridge, and the mining and reclamation plan address and include mitigation measures to
protect water quality— especially discharge of sediment— into the river. Note: Map A-1 in
Exhibit A is a location map at a relatively large scale and the width of annotations is quite
wide on the ground.
Response: Section 5.1 and Section 5.3.
county Specific Comment 8)duplicates DRMS Comment(7)above.
5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 18 of 107