My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2022018
>
2022-07-18_PERMIT FILE - M2022018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2025 6:18:01 AM
Creation date
7/18/2022 12:53:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
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
THM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> are significantly greater than objectively evaluated negatives. The commenter contradicts <br /> their own earlier issues. <br /> (19) rush to push through. <br /> Response: Section 5.10 <br /> The significant need of construction materials (sand and gravel) in the South End and in <br /> the northern portion of Archuleta County (and indeed, all of Archuleta County) is well <br /> documented and lack of good materials at a reasonable distance from users (State, <br /> County, USFS, private businesses and private land- and homeowners) significantly <br /> impacts costs of living and quality of life, as well as preservation of the value of their homes <br /> and land. Rising fuel cost inflation makes it more critical to quickly provide good sources <br /> of material which can be harvested in an environmental and safety-sensitive manner. The <br /> 110c process was designed many years ago to keep both time and effort to apply for, <br /> evaluate, and act on proposals to the minimum essential needed to protect the public and <br /> the environment, and meet local needs. <br /> 2.14 Hank Slikkor <br /> received May 29, 2022— *See also Section 3.38 <br /> List of eighteen (18) items, although there is some overlap and duplication. Mr. Slikker <br /> also had a letter-to-the-editor published in the 2 JUN 2022 edition of the Pagosa Springs <br /> Sun newspaper objecting to the proposed operation as well as his DRMS objections. <br /> (1) lives near pit <br /> Response: Erroneous: more than 10 miles away by road <br /> (2) Environmental Impact Study—asked if required and if so, has it be completed <br /> Response: Section 5.10 <br /> (3) Aesthetic degradation on our pristine mountain views <br /> Response: Section 5.9 <br /> (4) Industrial use in residential, recreational, agricultural area <br /> Response: Section 5.1 <br /> (5) reformations [assume he means remediation] to mitigate impacts on wildlife and <br /> Response: Section 5.6 <br /> (6) roads <br /> Response: Section 5.3 <br /> (7) wildlife leaving area per studies <br /> Response: Section 5.6 <br /> (8) fish impact due to sediment <br /> Response: Section 5.2 and Section 5.6 <br /> (9) impact on economic importance of fishing and hunting <br /> Response: Section 5.9 <br /> (10) impact on water system in community <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTEL[NE, INC. Page 24 of 107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.