Laserfiche WebLink
<br />October e, 1993 Page 2 <br />surface owners are Grand Mesa Properties and the United States <br />Forest Surface (USFS). <br />MCC will contend that notice to Grand Mesa Properties was timely <br />based on actual dates of mining. Notice to Grand Mesa Properties <br />was sent on December 13, 1984, warning the landowner of undermining <br />"on or about February 1, 1985", which provides only three (3) <br />months of notice. MCC has provided a map to substantiate their <br />claim that mining under the subject property did not in fact occur <br />until August 1985. This same notification seems to indicate that <br />development mining occurred under the Grand Mesa property prior to <br />May 1985. <br />To further support the appropriateness of this violation, the <br />letter to Grand Mesa Properties does not provide a description of <br />the "Measures to be taken to prevent or control surface effects" <br />(4.20.2(3)). This seems to be a crucial issue as that Grand Mesa <br />Properties indicates that they are very concerned that surface <br />subsidence may decrease the value of their land. In addition, <br />Grand Mesa Properties requested a structural resource inventory. <br />There is no evidence in the MCC package that these concerns were <br />ever resolved. The concern of Grand Mesa further illustrates the <br />need to strictly adhere to the requirements of Rule 4.20.2. <br />The USFS was not provided the notification as required in Rule <br />4.20.2. MCC will argue the USFS is a regulatory authority and is <br />not entitled to the notice provided to any other landowner. The <br />Division disagrees. MCC will also contend that the USFS was in <br />fact aware of the undermining as evidenced by their issuance of a <br />special use permit. However, in the package provided by MCC, it is <br />not clear that the USFS was notified of specifics as required by <br />Rule 4.20.2. The Division regards the issuance of NOV C-93-112 to <br />be appropriate and justified. The Division respectfully requests <br />that the Board uphold the Division's finding. <br />Notice of Violation C-93-114 Background <br />The Division issued Notice of Violation (NOV) C-93-114 on August <br />12, 1993, for failure to submit proper permitting documents for <br />light-use roads on the mine site. The violation was written <br />specifically for a road at the base of the refuse pile and upper <br />roads used to access upper diversion ditches and monitoring sites. <br />The Division asserts that certain areas of the mine constitute, and <br />are being used as light use roads. MCC argues that these areas are <br />not roads. Rule 1.04(111}(c) defines a light use road as, "roads <br />infrequently traveled or used on an intermittent basis for purposes <br />