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
Response: Same as above. It is the professional opinion of the Preparer of this application
and response, as a Colorado-licensed Professional Engineer trained and experienced in
the evaluation, design, construction, repair and maintenance of bridges that there is no
significant potential for the proposed operations in the South Hinsdale Gravel Pit for
damage to the Upper Piedra River Bridge owned by the US Government.
(8) Exhibit B p 11 (71h paragraph) Mining affected by agreements not yet reached
Response: This is something that should be answered by DRMS but it is not uncommon
for DRMS to impose restrictions and limits on a permitted operation based on future
matters, and there is a procedure for amendments and revisions to plans to account for
that. We note that the County may(not "will') include requirements for Kleckner Lane, but
since the application was submitted, the USFS has determined that Kleckner Lane is a
private road on which the USFS has a right-of-way, and so is NOT under County control.
Section 5.10
County Specific Comment 9) duplicates DRMS Comment (8) above.
Response: Same as above. As with DRMS, we understand that County special use
permits may also have conditions, and procedures for amending permits. It is difficult and
costly to attempt to define requirements in advance.
(9) Exhibit B p12 (9a) pit drainage (9b) runoff from Kleckner lane [bar ditches]
contaminating USFS land and river.
Response: Section 5.2
County Specific Comment 10) duplicates DRMS Comment(9)above.
Response: See Section 5.2
(10) Exhibit B p12 item 4 wetland in SE corner of permit area directly affected and should
be addressed —
Response: Protection of that wetland IS specifically addressed throughout the application
and is shown as a 0.13-acre 5700 SF area of minimal disturbance only as necessary to
protect the wetland and water flow and purity. That would include storm water best
management practices as described in the mining plan, particularly Figure C.3, which has
been revised to show more detail, including additional flow paths and channels. Although
that wetland is shown on USFWS and USACE maps, as a linear feature (particularly, a
streambed) it does not appear to contain hydric soils and cannot sustain wetland
vegetation without the irrigation return flows from the Toners'irrigated pasture. However,
we are treating it as a wetland. See Section 5.2
County Specific Comment 11) duplicates DRMS Comment (10) above.
Response: Same as above.
(11) Exhibit C Figure C.3 Page 20: (11a) Main discharge (N side of Kleckner) not
addressed. (11b) Both basins labeled as "Basin #2). (11c) South sediment basin where
wetland natural drainageway located and goes through culvert to USFS and river. (11d)
Reference to CDOT P&S does not allow for complete review.
Response: Section 5.2 Mining plan map (Exhibit E).
(a)As far as we determined, all discharges have been addressed directly or indirectly.
5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 19 of 107