By Matt Hasenohr
Feb 7, 2012
| "Great news everyone! Red Rock's in the clear! No need to go to Feb. 8 meeting!
Thanks to YOUR public involvement and a SUPPORTIVE county commission, the developer has withdrawn his application for BOTH WAIVERS for Red Rock. There WILL NOT be a vote on February 8, 2012. We should thank the county commissioners as well. They always seem to have to hear our complaints, but now we have something to be grateful for."
saveredrock.com/ | 
FLAG |
By Dylan Colon
From Eugene, OR
Feb 7, 2012
| Sounds like good news. Can anyone here explain what this means in the broader picture of the threat of development at the gypsum mine site? |
FLAG |
By John Wilder
From Las Vegas, NV
Feb 8, 2012
| Dylan Colon wrote: Sounds like good news. Can anyone here explain what this means in the broader picture of the threat of development at the gypsum mine site?
The first waiver was to allow construction traffic on the 159- since they withdrew this waiver request, Gypsum will now have to come in from the east, building the ridiculously expensive road as they go BEFORE they can begin to re-mediate the mine land above and actually build the project.
the other waiver was asking the county to do Gypsum's work for it by asking the BLM for the right of way coming from the east- so now Gypsum will need to do this itself, and the BLM is not in any position where it will be required to grant the right of way, as Gypsum has access to its land via a small dirt road off the 159.
In short, this was a pretty big win for Save Red Rock and other local groups. My personal opinion is that if these waivers had been granted, the war would have effectively been won by Gypsum. Thankfully, they were not, and now Gypsum still has a fairly long uphill battle. The financial burden from the road build from the east (I actually consider this part of the development cost prohibitive), as well as the long process that Gypsum will now have to endure to get a right of way to their land via the east approach (they will need to get an EA, which we can actually appeal and delay for years if we do it correctly). |
FLAG |
By smassey
From CO
Feb 8, 2012
| John Wilder wrote: ...long process that Gypsum will now have to endure to get a right of way to their land via the east approach (they will need to get an EA, which we can actually appeal and delay for years if we do it correctly).
Don't you mean the west? The really Steep Road will be on the east...
As for the EA or EIS, it'll delay itself without our help... hehe. Look at the Wilderness Mgmt Plan - the area was designated in '02. 10 yrs later they hired someone to finish it, after removing all that controversial climbing stuff... Think about how long it can take if the public is not in support of... |
FLAG |
By Jon O'Brien
From Nevada
Feb 8, 2012
| woooooooooooooooord,
vegas climbers represent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cheers to the finest climbing community around!
you guys are stacking equal signs on my erecticon at an exponential rate, cardio-vascular delivery is fully functional, and it is soooo HARD not to compliment everyone on a job well done!
8====================>
jon
see you guys at trail day saturday!
(all images not drawn to scale, objects may appear smaller using the human eye) |
FLAG |
By John Wilder
From Las Vegas, NV
Feb 8, 2012
| Nope- i mean the east. They have to cross BLM land east of the hill to gain access to their land. And lets pray that the EA turns into an EIS! |
FLAG |
By NickinCO
From Westminster, CO
Feb 8, 2012
| Glad to hear! I'll be there again for a week the beginning of March. Hoping for good weather. |
FLAG |
By smassey
From CO
Feb 8, 2012
| John Wilder wrote: Nope- i mean the east. They have to cross BLM land east of the hill to gain access to their land. And lets pray that the EA turns into an EIS!
No shit, sir. I stand corrected on the E/W thing. I did not know that.
Big Jon - you get some cosmetic work done to the tip? Seems a little pointier now... |
FLAG |
|
RSS Feed
