Laserfiche WebLink
I. Procedures and S <br />Lorencito Coal Company, LLC, : <br />(SL-02) which was received by tl <br />LLC, on behalf of Lorencito Coa <br />September 24, 2007, the Division <br />local agencies notifying them of <br />received the proof of publication <br />published on August 21, August <br />News as required by Rule 3.03.21 <br />and the applicant and the Office <br />Three objections to the bond rele <br />MGP Mineral Enterprises LLLP <br />objection was received on Augu: <br />Bobby Hill, objected to the relea <br />stated that "MGP conditions our <br />and acceptance by the surface ov <br />Division explained that Mr. Hill <br />designation which the Division <br />those affected areas. The Divisi~ <br />mining land use in a phone conv <br />received a letter from Mr. Me~~i <br />A second objection was receives <br />Duran, an adjacent landowner to <br />damage in his garage concrete fl~ <br />conducted at the mine site. He a <br />determine damages. In a letter d <br />and informed him that it was not <br />more than five years after blastir <br />required by the Rules. <br />of the Review Process <br />ibmitted an application for an Industrial Land Use bond release <br />Division on August 17, 2007. Peak Project Management, <br />Company, submitted the bond release application. On <br />received copies of the letters sent to adjacent landowners and <br />ie filing of the request. On September 25, 2007 the Division <br />-f the filing of the bond release request indicating notice was <br />8, September 4, and September 11, 2007 in The Chronicle - <br />)(b). The application was called complete on October 5, 2007 <br />f Surface Mining were notified. <br />~e were received by the Division. The first objection was from <br />vIGP), the majority coal owner of the Lorencito Mine. The <br />23, 2007 and stated that the minority mineral owner, Mr. <br />of any reclamation bond at the mine site. The letter also <br />pproval for release of the Coal Reclamation Bond upon release <br />er." In a phone conversation with Mr. Meggision, the <br />~d provided letter stating his desire for the industrial land use <br />o interpreted as approval of any subsequent bond release for <br />~ also confirmed Mr. Hill's agreement with the industrial post- <br />sation August 27, 2007. On August 31, 2007 the Division <br />>n stating that MGP had no objection to the bond release. <br />by the Division on September 14, 2007 from Mr. Michael <br />the Lorencito permit area. Mr. Duran indicated that he had blast <br />or and cracking of sheetrock in his home due to blasting <br />so requested that the operator complete apost-blast survey to <br />~ted September 19, 2007, the Division responded to Mr. Duran <br />possible for the Division to investigate a claim of blast damage <br />had ceased at the Lorencito Mine. No post-blast inspection is <br />A third objection was received by the Division on October 5, 2007 from Gabe and Heidi Dasko, <br />adjacent landowners. Similar to the Duran complaint, the Dasko objection requested apost-blast <br />survey to evaluate what they claimed was blast damage to the sheetrock in their home. The <br />Division responded in a letter dated October 10, 2007 that blast damage could not be evaluated <br />more than five years after blasting ceased and that no post-blast survey is required under our <br />Rules. <br />All objections were forwarded to'the operator as required by Rule 3.03.2(3). No informal <br />conference was requested by any objector. <br />On October 12, 2007 the Divisio~ln notified the operator and the surface owner (via certified mail) <br />of a bond release inspection scheduled for October 23, 2007 as required by Rule 3.03.2(2). The <br />