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 /> addressed in the DRMS application. This is not a "designated mining operation"and will <br /> not excavate or process hazardous materials. <br /> (6) Noise <br /> Response: Section 5.7 <br /> (7) Traffic <br /> Response: Section 5.3 <br /> (8) Ruin area for generations <br /> Response: Section 5.4 and Section 5.5 <br /> Discuss previous mining of sand and gravel along Piedra Road and in other communities <br /> such as the office park west of Durango, Tremble, and South Fork. <br /> (9) Route hunting and fishing areas that generate revenue for Archuleta County and <br /> Pagosa Springs <br /> Response: Section 5.9 <br /> Primary market and need is South End of Hinsdale County <br /> (10) Elk herds and other large game impact of construction, vehicle noise and humans <br /> Response: Sections 4.2 and 5.6 <br /> Experience on Hay Camp Mesa (Montezuma County) and in Estes Park, Colorado, plus <br /> the people killed on highways throughout Colorado as well as in the Dakotas, New Mexico. <br /> Utah and Wyoming demonstrate that impacts on large game animals is not significant. At <br /> the same time, the applicant is working with CPW and US FWS to minimize both short <br /> term and long-term impacts on all wildlife. <br /> (11) Elk not mentioned <br /> Response: Sections 4.2 and 5.6 <br /> (12) River otters <br /> Response: Sections 4.2, 5.2 and 5.6 <br /> (13) Mitigation (assume reference to wildlife impacts) takes decades <br /> Response: Section 5.4, Section 5.5, and Section 5.6 <br /> (14) Impact on economy <br /> Response: Section 5.9 <br /> Long-term effects: No economical sources of gravel area found, and Piedra Road <br /> deteriorates and the USFS is forced to restrict traffic to locals and legitimate use <br /> supporting USFS work (logging, cattle). <br /> (15) impact on tourist and local quality of life <br /> Response: Section 5.9 <br /> See the above discussion. USFS has authority to close roads. Meanwhile costs of <br /> maintaining county roads will increase taxes, making the region more expensive for <br /> tourism even while discouraging those tourists, in turn reducing tax revenues. Fire, <br /> emergency services will have reduced protection as money will be diverted for necessary <br /> maintenance and repairs instead of funding to ensure these protective resources are <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 27 of 107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.