Laserfiche WebLink
• Please provide the Division information regarding whether the seismic coefficients used <br /> in the slope stability analyses take into consideration blasting that may occur during <br /> mining operations. <br /> Seismic coefficients are discussed in the revised Geotechnical Stability Exhibit. <br /> 98. On July 22, 2021, August 2, 2021, and August 23, 2021, the Division sent the applicant <br /> copies of all timely comments (2) and objections (40) received for the application. Please <br /> inform the Division of how the applicant intends to address the jurisdictional issues <br /> raised by objectors and any concerns expressed by agencies. <br /> The Applicant acknowledges receipt of comments and objection letters forwarded by the <br /> Division. While two (2)timely comments and forty (40) timely objections were received; following <br /> conversations with Mr. Young, many objectors rescinded their objection. During these <br /> conversations, the Applicant took the time to thoroughly discuss the project and concerns of the <br /> objector. Therefore, only the twenty-eight (28) objectors detailed in the Division's October 11, <br /> 2021 `Revised List of Timely Objections and Comments Received (with Withdrawals <br /> Removed)...' are considered moving forward in this permitting process. <br /> Throughout the comments and objections received, many items brought forth are non- <br /> jurisdictional to the Division and state mining permit process. Many of these items are better and <br /> more appropriately addressed during the local entitlements and permitting process. Examples of <br /> non-jurisdictional comments and objections include but are not limited to: dust, noise, light, <br /> traffic, hours of operation, tourism and recreation interests, aesthetics, proximity to other mining <br /> efforts, and comparison to adjacent mining efforts. <br /> Further, the Applicant acknowledges Division rules applicable to a 112 permit application that <br /> establish a process for the specific purpose of addressing issues within the scope of the <br /> Construction Materials Act. <br /> Each objector to a 112 permit bears the burden of establishing that their concerns are within the <br /> scope of permit review. The Construction Materials Act provides that the MLRB may set a <br /> hearing on an application "for good cause shown in such protest or petition documents." <br /> According to Construction Materials Rules, the pre-hearing conference is the proper time to <br /> "propose a list of issues under the Board's jurisdiction, to simplify that list, and to identify <br /> parties." To be eligible for party status, objectors must demonstrate they are "directly and <br /> adversely affected or aggrieved" by a proposed mining operation. <br /> Prior to the pre-hearing conference, it is appropriate for an applicant and objectors to engage in <br /> dialogue without funneling that dialogue through the written adequacy review process, or to <br /> necessarily resolve what objections are within the jurisdiction of the MLRB, which are direct, <br /> which are adverse, and which are sufficiently demonstrated, all of which are mandatory for an <br /> issue to be qualified for resolution at hearing. <br /> Successful dialogue occurs in good faith, aside from detailed jurisdictional analysis, and free of <br /> any burden to build and sustain a written record. At this time, over one-third of objectors in the <br /> M-2021-009 case have withdrawn as a result of communication between the Applicant and <br /> those objectors. <br /> December 2021 35 Lewicki 81 Associates <br />