|
Objections Received
<br />The public comment period for the Amendment application closed on December 7, 2005. During
<br />the public comment period and prior to the First Publication, the Division received 26 timely
<br />objections to the Amendment from the following:
<br />1) Alfred J. Toopkem, received 8/5105, 2) Lisa Kunish, received 8/5/05, 3) Richard and
<br />Ronda Hilliard, received 815/05, 4) Roy and Shirley Tucker received 8/8/05, 5) Harriett
<br />Conner, received 8/8/05, 6) Calvin M. Jolly, received 8/8/05, 7) Ted Krwer, received
<br />8/8/05, 8) Charles Bergester, received 818/05, 9) Tony King and Larry Dhan, received
<br />8/9/05, 10) Grace Justarman, received 8/9/05, 11) Larkin Hildestad, received 8/9/05, 12)
<br />Sam and Lisa Lithan, received 8/10/05, 13) Larry and Lynne Shea, received 8/10/05, 14)
<br />Robert and Darken Surprenant, received B/10/05, 15) Lynn and Cindy Pitman, received
<br />8/11/05, 16) Bruce Mcnulty, received 8/15/05, 17) The Spain Family, received 8/16105,
<br />18) Brian and Victoria Minnerly, received 8/17/05, 19) Steve and Maria Herndon,
<br />received 8/22/05, 20) Kathy Tevis, received 8/30/05, 21) Richard Han, received 9/9/05,
<br />22) Sandra L Mucha, received 9/9/05 23j A.J and Andrea Fowler, received 9/12/05 24)
<br />Dan and Tracy Doran 12/6/05, 25) Mr. And Mrs. John Connor, 12/06/05, 266rian
<br />Mckinon 12.6105.
<br />Issues raised by the objectors that are outside the jurisdiction
<br />of the Division.
<br />1) Dust and pollution, 2) Noise, 3) Traffic Safety, 4) Impairment of gravel road due to trucks
<br />traveling Soap Weed Road, 5) quality of life, 6) the size of the proposed operation, 7) location
<br />in respect to residential area, 8) times of operation, 9) rezoning, 10) archeological deposits,
<br />1 f) lights, 12j smell, 13) close proximity to the town of Calhan, 14) loss of property value.
<br />Issues raised by the objectors that are within the jurisdiction
<br />of the Division.
<br />The issues raised by the objecting parties are in bold print. DMG'S response to the
<br />objection issues follows in standard print.
<br />References to the Act are from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction
<br />of Construction Materials, 34-32.5-101 et seq. C.R.S. (1995 Repl.vol.) References to the
<br />Rules are from the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined
<br />Land Reclamation Board, effective, October 1995, amended June 2005.
<br />DMG considered all timely submitted comments in its review of the application. DMG can
<br />only address the issues that directly relate to the specific requirements of an application, as
<br />stated in the Act and Rules. Since most of the timely objection letters received were in the
<br />form of a similar form letter, the Division instead of listing each objector's concern, combined
<br />them into three items where the Division has jurisdiction and is required to address.
<br />1) Potential petroleum spills could contaminate ground water.
<br />There will be fuel and oil storage in the facility. As required by the Division, all such materials
<br />are to be stored in an impervious lined area. Choice of liner is up to the operator. The
<br />operator can choose to use either compacted clay or other man made material to decrease
<br />percolation to ground water. The Division's requirements for Spill Prevention and
<br />Containment Structures require such operations to design alt areas of storage to handle
<br />120°/a of the total fuel and other petroleum products that will be stored on site.
<br />
|