Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (2) Objection: users of gravel pit would disturb the peace and beauty See Sections 5.1, <br /> 5.7, 5.9. and 5.11 <br /> (3) Objection: traffic—trucks would delay traffic/cause huge bottlenecks See Section 5.3 <br /> (4) Objection: Road conditions — Piedra Road See Section 5.3 <br /> (5) Objection: Location: not an industrial area See Section 5.1 <br /> (6) Objection: "would destroy our neighborhoods on this side of 160" See Sections 5.1, <br /> 5.9 and 5.11 <br /> (7) Objection: Location: directly across the road from one of the most beautiful and <br /> accessible river trails" <br /> Response: See Section 5.1. There are few if any potential locations on private land in <br /> Hinsdale County or Archuleta County which are not near a location or feature which is <br /> beloved by many people. Attempts to locate operations in areas which are more distant <br /> or less visible due to terrain have been repeatedly defeated. The mining plan and short- <br /> term length of this project include many features which mitigate this visual impact. See <br /> Section 5.9. The long-term effects of the mining and reclamation will include a significant <br /> improvement of the appearance of the affected area, particularly near the bridge between <br /> the river and the Kleckner Lane intersection. <br /> 3.6 Eileen Monyok <br /> List of one (1)general remark, two (2) claims, and eight (8) objections. <br /> General Remarks: <br /> (1) General: health, recreation and environmental impacts for a majority of people over <br /> profits of a few. Too general a comment to effectively respond individually. The Texers <br /> seek to make a living, pay for needed improvements to their property (including Kleckner <br /> Lane and their irrigated pasture), and provide a public good to the people of the South <br /> End by providing a short-term, close source of badly needed material at a reasonable cost <br /> and less environmental, health, safety and social impacts than now faced which will result <br /> in improving the condition of their own land. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: thorough independent and professional environmental impact study — <br /> problematic location: <br /> Response: Both the preparer and the reviewers (Colorado DRMS, other State agencies, <br /> and USFS personnel) are independent, trained, and experienced in assessing <br /> environmental impacts and design, review, permitting, and management of mining and <br /> reclamation. <br /> (2) Claim: registered agent lives in Colorado Springs, not locally. See Section 5.11. <br /> ONections: <br /> (1) Objection: location (general) — demands location far from a popular recreation area <br /> and popular river <br /> Response: See Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.11, and discussion of alternatives (5.4.1). Many <br /> past and current mining operations including ones recently permitted in Southwestern <br /> Colorado are located in/near popular recreation areas and near `popular"rivers including <br /> the Animas, the La Plata, the Dolores, and the Piedra itself. <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 33 of 107 <br />