Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> 3.13 Jon Reed <br /> 2095 Taylor Lane— Sportsman's Campground South End <br /> List of nine (9) claims and nineteen (19)objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: location -does not fall within County Zoning regulations See Section 5.1. <br /> (2) Claim: location - Not a worse location for a pit Response: too general, with no <br /> supporting facts or evidence. Based simply on other objections and past denials or <br /> withdrawals of applications, there are many far worse places. <br /> (3) Claim: location/procedures - ignoring the vision of the plan would render all County <br /> regulations irrelevant and useless See Section 5.1. This proposal does not "ignore the <br /> vision"and is in compliance with the regulations, state and local. <br /> (4) Claim: personal attack - Texers do not live in the area and will not have to deal with <br /> the negative effects of the pit, bought property knowing the regs had been in place Please <br /> see Section 5.11. As discussed previously, the Texers did not decide to pursue this <br /> operation until after the Toner pit had been denied. <br /> (5) Claim: road condition - Piedra Road does not need more gravel but requires constant <br /> maintenance and claims road is not being maintained properly and will not be While issues <br /> of`proper maintenance"and claims about future maintenance should be addressed to the <br /> USFS, proper and constant maintenance of ANY gravel-surfaced roadway, especially one <br /> with high volumes of RV and logging truck traffic, does require a constant supply of good- <br /> quality gravel, which this pit can supply. <br /> (6) Claim: water quality - barriers will be inadequate — always are — cites intense <br /> downpours See Section 5.2 and surface <br /> (7) Claim: water quality - irreversible damage to river health See Section 5.2 <br /> (8) Claim: general/reclamation issues - application reviewed by Colorado Trout Unlimited <br /> It appears that the CTU response is flawed for the following reasons: <br /> a. Reviewer did not read entire application or would have seen `potential"discharge and <br /> reason for armored outlet in case of flow in excess of design due to very low probability <br /> storm events. <br /> b. Reviewer failed to read reclamation plan — claiming only 3 acres to be reclaimed: <br /> actually 3 acres at a time estimated as maximum area to be reclaimed. <br /> c. Reviewer seems to claim this is equal to a designated mining operation such as gold <br /> mines and operations abandoned for years. This is an improper comparison. <br /> d. Reviewer claims that reclamation is significantly low and cites costs at very different <br /> operations, and also appears not to understand the reclamation estimate and financial <br /> warranty process, including the actual amount is determined by DRMS. <br /> e. Note that CTU appears to have written this to the Texers but they have received <br /> nothing from this organization. <br /> (9) Claim: location - this is NOT a better situation than the Toner Ranch Pit See Section <br /> 5.2.1 (Alternatives) <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 40 of 107 <br />