Laserfiche WebLink
(i~ Has the Applicant provided a statement identifying which permits, licenses, and <br />approvals it will seek to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operations? <br />Specifically at issue is the Gilpin County Special Use Review (SUR) Permit. <br />Two other county permits of concern were identified at the Pre-hearing <br />conference, the Individual Sewage Disposal System Pemtit and the Gtading <br />Permit for roads. (Rule G.4.13- Exhibit M.} <br />8. Issue 7(A}; Pre-Mining and Mining Plan Maps, Rule 6.4.3(b). As stated in the <br />Division's "Rationale for Recotnmendation ofApproval" ("Rationale"}, the Applicant <br />provided revised maps C-1, C-2A, C-2B and C-2C, which accurately show the location of <br />the quarry entrance and the Location of all permanent man-made swctures within 200 <br />feet of the quarry entrance. <br />9. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant has rnct the minimum <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.3(b). <br />10. Issue 7(B): Blast vibration Analysis and Blasting Flan, Rule 6.4.4(i) and 6.5(4). As <br />described in the Division's Rationale, the Applicant provided a detailed blast analysis <br />prepazed by Lyman Henn, Ina ("Henn Blasting Report"). The Hcnn Blasting Report <br />provides an assessment ofpossible surface and subsurface impacts and a monitoring plan <br />to detect the presence or absence of offsite impacts. The Henn Blasting Report also <br />proposes mitigation measures that will be implemented in the event a peak pazticle <br />velocity of 0.75 inches•per second is detected in any structure not owned or controlled by <br />the Applicant or a peak particle velocity of 0.50 inches per sewnd is detected at any older <br />struclure with plaster-an-lath walls that aze within the zone of inllucnce of quarry blast <br />ground vibrations. The blasting plan ensures that adverse impacts will not occur to the <br />M!vlRR Bnani Order, M-2004-067 <br />26 <br />