Laserfiche WebLink
LLLJ <br /> South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (b) We thank Mr. Dilione for finding the typo duplicating numbering and have corrected <br /> that. Based on USFS comments, the locations of the basins have been changed, also <br /> taking Mr. Dilione's comments into account. <br /> (c) There is not a "natural drainageway" directly associated with the culvert under FSR- <br /> 631 about 100 feet south of FSR-633. That culvert accepts water from the east bar-ditch <br /> of FSR-631 and the road itself, and sheet flow from the slope above it. This bar-ditch will <br /> not be disturbed as it is on the USFS ROW; regrading the slope above it to prevent sheet <br /> flow or channelized water from discharging into the ditch answers this concern. The USFS <br /> wants the culvert (or a replacement) to remain in place to serve to prevent washout of <br /> Piedra Road in case of extreme weather conditions(greater than 100-year event)provided <br /> that various BMP are installed and maintained to ensure that sediment and other <br /> contaminants are not contained in surface discharge. The site identified as a "wetland" is <br /> not delineated as a natural wetland under USACE jurisdiction and is not in a location that <br /> will be disturbed by the proposed operations, as it is inside the ROW, and with the changes <br /> in the access point (as per USFS comments)the main concern will be ensuring that some <br /> (uncontaminated)water is available to sustain the plants (as soil is not hydric) beyond that <br /> running off of Piedra Road. <br /> (d) The CDOT P&S documents are readily available on-line. To include such in a 110c <br /> application would be similar to including the entire text of the MUTCD, DRMS rules and <br /> regulations, or all of a County's Road and Bridge Standards in an access permit <br /> application. <br /> County Specific Comment 15) duplicates DRMS Comment (11)above. <br /> Response: Same as above. <br /> (12) Exhibit F1 item 4. Truck traffic. (12a) reason for 80-20 split (12b) need only to the <br /> south <br /> Response: See Section 5.3. This is a fallacious comparison of two very different <br /> proposals. The Oakbrush Hill operation was a different applicant and with different <br /> objectives, proposed production, and different markets, and should not be compared with <br /> the intent of the Texers for the South Hinsdale Gravel Pit. "Houses"are not the major point <br /> of delivery for construction materials, as is implied by this comment. The major customers <br /> for construction materials are gravel roads and similar surfaced spaces (such as parking <br /> areas and unpaved driveways, both public and private, followed by construction of new <br /> buildings (including houses). The general estimate of haul traffic was determined <br /> separately by an experienced professional based on various factors, and simply are <br /> similar. For example, the Texers do not expect to have a large percentage of material <br /> shipped to the west on SH-160 as those locations are nearer existing sources. And one <br /> of their primary objectives is to provide the material needed in the Hinsdale County South <br /> End itself, by ranchers, the County, USFS, residents and other businesses. This can <br /> significantly reduce impacts on Piedra Road, especially to the South, as happened in <br /> 2021. <br /> Mr. Dilione's County Specific Comment 17)elaborates on DRMS Comment (12) above. <br /> Response: Same as above. <br /> (13) Exhibit F1 Item 4. "Virtually all truck traffic will go to Archuleta County" (13a) Is road <br /> designed to handle traffic (13b) USFS-Archuleta County agreement(13c) Discussion and <br /> agreement with Archuleta County (13d) Status of USFS-ACRBD agreement <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 20 of 107 <br />