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 /> five miles north of SH-160 but continuing on into Hinsdale County. There are no alternative <br /> routes available. <br /> (2) Objection: road conditions - Piedra Road conditions "Terrible and dangerous": <br /> speeding caused by gravel pit, "Cause more damage to already poor roads" See Section <br /> 5.3 <br /> (3) Objection: social - "Adversely affect our way of life" See Section 5.9 <br /> (4) Objection: traffic - "Endanger residents egress" See Section 5.3 <br /> (5) Objection: wildlife - "Endanger wildlife" (assume road traffic issue) See Sections 5.3 <br /> and 5.6 <br /> 3.4 Jennifer Burck <br /> {NOTE: original submitted to DRMS but after suspense date, but was submitted to County) <br /> List of eleven (11) claims and twelve (12) objections <br /> (1) Claim: "same businessman who was denied a permit ... in Pagosa Springs has <br /> solicited Hinsdale County for a permit to operate the same type of business" See Section <br /> 5.11 and item 3.3 above. <br /> (2) Claim: "Permit with Archuleta County was denied because of..." See Section 5.11 and <br /> Item 3.3 above. <br /> (3) Claim: Hinsdale County officials will never see, hear, breath or be tailgated by the <br /> trucks See Section 5.11 <br /> (4) Claim: roads are almost entirely within Archuleta County so the burden on the <br /> infrastructure of Hinsdale County will be almost nil yet the revenue generated will be great <br /> See Section 5.11 <br /> (5) Claim: negative impacts "for decades at their own expense!" <br /> Response: The proposed operation will not last for "decades"and is not expected to last <br /> more than four or so years. Once mining is completed and materials are no longer <br /> available from this operation for users (including Hinsdale and Archuleta County and <br /> USFS and local people), the problems with cost and impact of transporting material from <br /> distant sources will return, however. <br /> (6) Claim: SHG Pit "almost 20 miles away from US Hwy 160", "Approval on Hwy 160 "no <br /> brainer" " <br /> Response: While neither the applicant nor local governments can limit the sale of materials <br /> to just local buyers and users, a fairly small amount of material is expected to actually be <br /> hauled on SH-160 due to the distance of approximately 18 miles. Attempts to find and <br /> develop gravel resources on or closer to SH-160 and Pagosa Springs and its suburbs <br /> have repeatedly failed in the last decade and longer. <br /> (7) Claim: Piedra Road poorly maintained, dusty gravel road, or... sloppy rutted mess. <br /> See Section 5.3 <br /> (8) Claim: "directly in the head waters [sic] of the pristine Piedra River' See Section 5.2. <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 31 of 107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.