Laserfiche WebLink
A. ISSUES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />1. Rule 6.4.19 Exhibit S - Permanent Man Made Structures <br />The following objector raised concerns regarding the operation's proximity to permanent man <br />made structures located on their property: <br />• Corabelle Goetzel (deceased) - Concerned that the mining operation will have significant <br />impact to her home and outbuildings, and requests that no mining operations take place <br />within 200 feet of her property line. <br />Division Response <br />The question raised by the above comment is related to Rule 6.4.19 of the Construction Materials <br />Rules and Regulation, which requires the applicant to either: <br />a.) Provide a notarized agreement between the applicant and the person(s) having an interest in the <br />structure, that the applicant is to provide compensation for any damage to the structure; or <br />b.) Where such an agreement cannot be reached, the applicant shall provide an appropriate <br />engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be damaged by activities <br />occurring at the mining operation. <br />The objector's representatives have been given the opportunity by the applicant to sign a damage <br />compensation agreement. The applicant has also submitted to the Division a geotechnical stability <br />report to demonstrate that the proposed setbacks in the mining plan are adequate to prevent damage <br />to any man-made structures on the objector's property. The Division has completed an independent <br />geotechnical stability analysis to verify that the setbacks proposed by the applicant are adequate. <br />The Division is satisfied that the setbacks as stated in the application are adequate, and that the <br />requirements of Rule 6.4.19 have been met at this time. <br />2. General Issues <br />The following objectors raised concerns about the lack of an Environmental Impact Study for the <br />proposed operation: <br />• Charles Cannon <br />Division Response <br />The Division does not require an EIS to be performed for a I I2c permit amendment application. <br />B. ISSUES RAISED THAT THE DIVISION BELIEVES ARE NOT WITHIN THE <br />JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION OR BOARD <br />1. Air Ouality- including dust, airborne particulate, air pollution and allergic reactions <br />The following objectors raised concerns on how the operation may impact air quality in the area: <br />• Corabelle Goetzel (now deceased) <br />• Charles A Cannon <br />Division Response <br />Air quality is regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), <br />2