PERMFILE108985

• Permit No: M1999004
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 6/4/1999
• From: JAMES E LOCKHART
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

rune 4, 1999 3:06 PM From: James:Lockhart Fax #: [phone] ~ge 3 of 6
Ttvst Lands Dtrectory 1447-2000 states generally that leased Slate Trust Lands are open to
"everyone who wants to participate in wildlife recreation" and states that the program has opened
State Trust Lands "for public access" and "for fiunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers [o use these
properties." In other words, the fact that I and other members of the public may choose to enjoy
wildlife with a camera or binoculars rather than with a gun does not make us trespassers or in any
~vay limit our right to receive notice of and comment upon the apparently conflicting use of this
land represented by the Castle Concrete quarry application.
This misunderstanding on the part of Castle is significant because it appears to be
pervasive in the various documents presented to the Mined Land Reclamation Board and to
Fremont County. Most notably, the permit application on file with the Fremont County
Department of Planning and Zoning describes and discounts visual impacts, but does not appear to
address the concerns raised by the Sierra Club and Division of Wildlife regarding impacts to or
conflicts with public users of the parcel under the Division of Wildlife lease. A4r. Heifner in his
Allay 25th letter makes much of the fact that I and other objectors were not present at a hearing on
May 11th before the Fremont County Commissioners. However, to the best of my knowledge,
even if a person had read all of Castle Concrete's submissions on file with the Fremont County
Planning and Development Department, he would not have known of the enormous impact which
the proposed quarry would have on public use of the Table Mountain parcel. I believe that until
Mr. Duane Finch stated at your A~ay 13th Informal Conference that the Division of Wildlife was
considering closing approximately 3500 acres of land to the public, this impact had no[ been made
publicly known.
I realize that the issues properly before the Mined Land Reclamation Board are very
limited. Nevertheless, the Board should examine the Castle Concrete permit application to
determine whether Castle's misunderstanding of the extent of current public usage of the Table
Mountain parcel has any impacts upon the Board's ability to grant the permit or upon the
conditions which it must attach to the pemri[. We understand that the Division of Wildlife has
raised similar concems, and expect that the Board will also consider [heir comments.
I am not clear as to the extent to which these concems may have been mooted. Although
Mr. Heifner's May 25th letter states that the Division of Wildlife has "canceled their portion of
the lease that borders Highway 115", my understanding, based on comments of Mr. Finch at the
informal conference, is that the Division of Wildlife was contemplating such a cancellation, but
had not yet formally given up its lease. Mr. Berhan ICeffelew th a June 2nd telephone
conversation implied that the Division of Wildlife is still an objecting party. The Board should of
course consider public impacts in light of existing public access rights, not contingent or
unrealized plans to reduce or eliminate them in the future.
2. Public notice of the proposed quarry.
In my previous letter, I stated [hat public notice was provided by postings at the quary site
and by notices posted on a public mailbox at the Mountaindale Campground on Barrett Road. In
that letter, I apparently overstated the actual extent of notice given to the public. Mr. Heifner in
his May 25th letter states; "Landowners on Barret[ Road are not required to he notified as they are
more than 200 feet from the permit boundary." He goes on to state: "I am not sure what sort of
public notice you are referring to on the mailboxes outside the Mountaindale Campground. If
there were such notices they were not put there by Castle Concrete." I have since contacted a
couple of landowners in the vicinity, who confirm that Castle did not post the notice. One of the
landowners is of the opinion [hat the State Land Board posted the notices, while another is of the
opinion that the posting was done by another local landowner. I agree with Mr. Heifner [hat the
notices are of no significance in determining whether Castle complied with Division notice
regulations.
It therefore appears that Castle Concrete only provided public notice through a posting of
a sign at the quarry site, and through a public notice printed in the CANON CITI DAIL1