REV92750 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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