Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> South Hinsdale Response to Objections - <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> (18) Objection: water quality/consumption - improper water use — water to come from <br /> irrigation ditch See Section 5.2 <br /> (19) Objection: water quality —water to run immediately into the river See Section 5.2 <br /> 3.14 Michael Greene <br /> 895 Taylor Lana <br /> List of two (2) claims and one (1) objection. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: environmental impacts - ecosystem of the Upper Piedra is fragile and will be <br /> adversely impacted (no details) See Sections 5.4 and 5.5 <br /> (2) Claim: same problems as Toner Ranch Pit — even inferior (no details) See Section <br /> 5.2.1 (Alternatives) <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: road damage—trucks would be highly destructive See Section 5.3. <br /> 3.15 Amy and Ray Brutcher <br /> List of five (5) claims and six (6) objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: only benefit will be to those who do not live in Pagosa See Section 5.9 <br /> (2) Claim: gravel pit will wash fine sediments from aggregates which will go directly to the <br /> river See Sections 5.2. and 5.11.4 <br /> (3) Claim: compares this to the Gold King Mine on the Animas. <br /> Response: There are many and significant differences between the long-abandoned <br /> heavy-metal Gold King Mine (GKM) and the South Hinsdale Gravel Pit—this is not a good <br /> comparison. Some differences include: GKM was abandoned; GKM was a heavy-metal <br /> underground mine; GKM exposed minerals which were water-priority contaminants <br /> (pollutants). This mine is none of those. <br /> (4) Claim: past mine owners and operators are not held responsible Although this did <br /> happen, the passing of laws by the State of Colorado has ended this. Today, Colorado <br /> DRMS requires and holds a financial warranty for an amount calculated by DRMS <br /> professional staff to provide enough money to have a third-party reclaim the site to State <br /> standards. Mine owners/operators, including the applicant, are indeed held responsible. <br /> (5) Claim: The Ecotourism market is the future not the aggregate market Aggregates <br /> (construction materials) are one of the many essential products and services necessary <br /> for support of the Ecotourism market. Other examples are water supply, energy, <br /> communications, waste-water treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, recycling, <br /> and vehicle maintenance and repair. Many of these have potential negative impacts but <br /> without these goods and services, the tourism market cannot exist. If these goods and <br /> services cannot be provided locally, they will be more scarce, more expensive, and impact <br /> negatively on the market and those who make their living from providing for tourism, as <br /> well as have greater impacts on the environment. <br /> 5182-22-003 W AST£LINh, INC. Page 42 of 107 <br />