Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 2 <br />fathom any scenario where the Board could do anything to remedy their situation, which has almost no merit to <br />begin with. <br />I believe the bond release process was followed to the letter of the law and the decision should be now <br />considered final. Should the Durans or Daskos want to pursue the matter, it should be through the court system. <br />Kent Gorham <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Rm 215 <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />(303) 866-4931 direct <br />(303) 866-3567 general <br />kent.gorham@state.co.us <br />From: Hernandez, Daniel <br />Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 8:24 AM <br />To: Berry, David <br />Cc: Gorham, Kent; Cramer, Johanna <br />Subject: Question Regarding Rule Interpretation <br />Dave - <br />I have a question regarding the term "other interested parties" in Coal Rule 3.03.2(5)(a) <br />During the review of Lorencito Canyon's bond release application SL-02 (a partial Phase 1/11/III, industrial-post- <br />mining land use, bond release for the loadout), we received three objections. One of these was withdrawn. <br />The remaining two were filed timely in accordance with the timeframes in Rule 3.03.2(3). The objectors stated <br />that their homes had undergone "pre-blast surveys", alleged that damage to certain structures had been created <br />by mine blasting, and requested a "post-blast survey to see what damages have occurred after the blasting <br />started". <br />Kent responded in writing in a timely manner to both objectors stating that blasting at the Lorencito mined stopped <br />in June 2002, that the mine's blasting records indicated that the company was blasting within allowable peak <br />particle velocity limits during operations, and that we would be unable to discern now what damage may have <br />occurred from blasting that had stopped more than five years ago. <br />My question is whether objectors who submit objections to bond release applications that DRMS staff believe are <br />not valid objections with regard to the subject of the bond release application, and who do not withdraw their <br />objections by the time we issue a proposed decision. should be considered "other interested parties" as <br />mentioned in Rule 3.03.2(5)(a). If so, then we would be required to notify these objectors of our proposed <br />decision (along with our Findings) and of their right to request a public hearing. <br />Incidentally, the public comment period associated with our proposed decision ended at 5:01 pm on Monday June <br />16. Neither objector submitted a request for a public hearing during the proposed decision comment period. <br />6/23/2008