Laserfiche WebLink
South Hinsdale Response to Objections � n <br /> 12 July 2022 <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: "millions of dollars were spent in the last few years to improve Piedra Road <br /> which would be lost" <br /> Response: Although we cannot confirm the amount of money, most money (including <br /> the 2021 USFS project) used for Piedra Road was intended to maintain or restore <br /> safe, functional road use, not to improve it. Unlike concrete paved roads, and even <br /> more than asphalt paved roads, gravel roads require constant maintenance, including <br /> replacement of base course (gravel)lost by traffic of all kinds of vehicles. As discussed <br /> in other responses, the truck traffic does impact road conditions but is mitigated both <br /> by money charged by fees for the road's use, by reduced cost of maintaining the roads. <br /> and by reducing total miles traveled by having closer sources. <br /> (2)Claim: Opinion of citizens of Archuleta County should be heard because of road usage <br /> This claim implies that Archuleta citizens have NOT been heard, while records of past <br /> attempts at mining indicates that Archuleta citizens have very much been heard in <br /> Hinsdale County as well as Archuleta County proceedings. The bulk of comments <br /> received by both DBMS and Hinsdale County on this proposed pit come from Archuleta <br /> County residents. <br /> Objections: <br /> (1) Objection: location — does not align with the recreational usage of the Upper Piedra <br /> area (which has been well established for decades) See Section 5.1. Use for production <br /> of natural resources (cattle, timber, gravel) has also been well-established, going back <br /> about 150 years. <br /> (2) Objection: traffic—increase will decrease quality of life for users and those who live on <br /> See Sections 5.3 and 5.9 <br /> (3) Objection: road conditions See Section 5.3 <br /> (4) Objection: wildlife —adverse effect See Sections 4.2 and 5.6 <br /> (5) Objection: social — quality of life adverse effect See Section 5.9 <br /> (6) Objection: location —more appropriate locations to implement project See Section 5.1 <br /> and 5.4.1 <br /> 3.19 Dustin English <br /> List of two (2) claims and nine (9) objections. <br /> Claims: <br /> (1) Claim: Absolutely worst location." See Sections 5.1 and 5.4.1. <br /> (2) Claim: citizens of Hinsdale County "will never know it's [sic] existence" See Sections <br /> 5.10, 5.11.8, and locations of persons commenting on the proposal as well as officials to <br /> whom these comments are submitted. Based on comments, Hinsdale County residents <br /> appear to be very much aware of the proposal. <br /> Objections <br /> (1) Objection: road conditions: torn-up gravel roads See Section 5.3 <br /> (2) Objection: safety: dodging semi-trucks See Section 5.3 <br /> (3) Objection: general environmental impact— lifelong See Sections 5.4 and 5.5 <br /> 5182-22-003 WAST£I.INE, INC. Page 45 of 107 <br />