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 /> 5.4 General Short-Term Environmental Impacts <br /> Alternative Courses of Action <br /> Although a formal environmental assessment or environmental impact statement/study as <br /> per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not required for this project, most if <br /> not all elements of an EA/ESA are included in the application exhibits and responses, <br /> including review. Alternative courses of action considered and rejected from further <br /> consideration include: <br /> 1. No-action alternative: South End of Hinsdale County will continue to have to bring sand <br /> and gravel long distances at great monetary cost and significant environmental <br /> impacts, including socio-economic negative impacts. <br /> 2. Mine on public and not private land: All nearby public land in the South End and the <br /> northern portion of Archuleta County is NFS land. The USFS is prohibited by law from <br /> allowing construction materials to be mined and sold/given to commercial or private <br /> users. <br /> 3. Mine at other locations in the South End which meet various criteria of potential and <br /> actual objections: Efforts by various individuals and entities have been unable to find <br /> such a location which (a) the landowner is willing to attempt to permit and develop, <br /> and (b) is not subject to an equal or greater number of objections on the various issues <br /> addressed. Please see Section 5.3 for more discussion of alternative locations. <br /> 4. Recycling to produce reusable materials: In addition to a lack of sufficient feedstock in <br /> the South End or nearby that would NOT require considerable hauling of materials up <br /> Piedra Road, the process of storing, processing, loading and hauling of recycled <br /> aggregates has similar if not more intense impacts, and is not economically feasible. <br /> Several comments stated that this location was as bad as or even worse than the <br /> location of the Toner Ranch proposal about 1.2 miles to the north. Response: in one <br /> sense, this is a situation as good as that for the Toner Ranch Pita both meet objective, <br /> statutory, and engineering/environmental practices standards and requirements. <br /> However, this site does have several advantages over the Toner Ranch location. <br /> Among these are less overburden to deal with, a lack of water users downstream, <br /> greater distances from other private property, and an opportunity to improve a road <br /> and other conditions for local residents in the South End superior to the opportunities <br /> available to Cynthia Toner. <br /> Land Quality and Viewshed <br /> During mining until reclamation is complete, some of the 9.94 acres will be taken out of <br /> production and will not be available for livestock pasture. This amounts to less than 9% of <br /> the irrigable land (110 acres) in the immediate quarter-section of land in which the affected <br /> area is located, and less than 5% of the 225 acres of irrigable land within Y2 mile and is <br /> not expected to have any significant impact. <br /> A number of objectors stated that the mining here was incompatible with a scenic drive <br /> and other related uses. This is discussed in Section 5.1 (Location) but additional <br /> information is provided here regarding the viewshed and drives and highways recognized <br /> by many as scenic which have gravel pits on those roads, both in Colorado and in EPA <br /> Region Vlll. There are many hundreds of miles of scenic drives on which many hundreds <br /> of gravel pits are directly located or can be seen at relatively short distances from the <br /> roads. A few examples are discussed below, to demonstrate that mining of sand and <br /> gravel is compatible with scenic drives and highways beyond "historic"use. <br /> 5182-22-003 WASTELINE, INC. Page 72 of 107 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.