Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale-Recommendation forApproual <br />July 26, 2000 page 2 <br />Additional objection letters received after the informal conference and within 5 days of the same conference: <br />Name Date Date Received <br />Sam & Karen Morrison 6/29/00 7/1/00 <br />Roger Flynn (Citizens for Victor) 7/7/00 7/7/00 <br />Daryl D. Page 7/7/00 7/7/00 <br />Marilyn Fay 7/7/00 7/7/00 <br />Richard Fa 7/7/00 7/7/00 <br />The following individuals sent timely objection letters but due to lack of address, the Division was unable to <br />send them notices. The Division tried to locate these individuals through the 411 system in Teller, El Paso, <br />Pueblo, and Denver with no resu]ts. However, the issues they raised were also raised by other objectors and <br />are addressed by the Division where appropriate. <br />Name <br />Andi Dellasardis <br />Richard Battiste <br />Jose h Pouliter <br />ISSUES RAISED BY OB.TECTORS <br />Issues raised by objecting parties are listed below, along with the names of the objectors. The Division's <br />response to objection issues follows. Issues are listed under the application exhibit (application section) to <br />which they pertain. Issues not pertaining to a specific application exhibit are listed last. <br />ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />ISSUES RAISED DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC COIVIMENT PERIOD AND FIVE (5) DAYS <br />AFTER THE INFORMAL CONFERENCE <br />6.4.4 Exhibit D -Mining Plan <br />Blasting damage to property. (S. & K. Morrison, M. Fay, R. Fay, M. Winblood, K. & F. Calvert) <br />DMC Response: To date, CC&V has never exceeded the peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second <br />set by the Division in accordance with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Blasting <br />Guidance Manual and approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. <br />The Division has scrutinized the information submitted both within the amendment application and by the <br />commentors. The objection letters addressed the 0.5 inch per second peak particle velocity (ppv) limitation <br />placed upon the Cresson Project. The Division believes CC&V has adequately demonstrated, through <br />appropriate blasting, vibration, geotechnical and structural engineering analyses, that off-site areas will not <br />be adversely affected by blasting. The operator has set an appropriate ppv limit using an acceptable <br />methodology and included a reduction of the allowed ppv limit, in consideration of the age and construction <br />material composition of nearby structures [Universal Building Codes (UBC) requirement]. <br />