My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV05177
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV05177
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:03:35 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:23:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/26/2000
Doc Name
PN M-1980-244 CRESSON PROJECT AM-08
From
DMG
To
CRIPPLE CREEK&VICTOR GOLD MINING CO
Type & Sequence
AM8
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.
/
10
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
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.