Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 4, 1999 3:06 PM From: James~Lockhart Fax #: 719385-0045 ~ge 4 of 6 <br />RECORD. The adequacy of these two notices is discussed separately below. Nevertheless, a third <br />question still exists as to whether adjoining landowners were entitled to notice, since if this was the <br />case, the requisite notice was not provided. The Castle Concrete quarry application is governed by <br />the notice provisions governing Regular l 12 Permits, Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rule 1.6 Public <br />Notice Procedures, which requires posting, publication, and notification of adjoining landowners. <br />2a. Adequacy of the notice yosted on the quany site. <br />As I noted in my March 22nd letter, the only notice of the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology application was posted at the actual quarry site, located at the end of a ?-mile access road <br />not open to the public at large and impassable in inclement weather. In his March 25th letter, Mr. <br />Heffner cool-rrms that this was the only such posting of notice of the application. In his letter, Mr. <br />Heffner states that this "seems to be what the rules require" and that Mr. Berhan Keffelew <br />inspected the site and indicated that the sign was "properly posted" according to his inspection <br />report, "but no mention was made that a voluntary posting at the highway might be a good idea." <br />Section 1.6.2 General Application Procedures, subsection (1)(b) states that the operator <br />shall, prior to filing the application, post notices "at the location of the proposed mine site." The <br />question of adequacy is therefore one of interpretation of this rule, and I believe toms on the <br />meaning of the term "proposed mine site". This tens is not defined in the rule. However, the rule <br />goes on to state that "Any class of Limited Impact 110 or 110d operation need only post notice <br />(sign) at the location of the proposed access to the site." This would seemingly require posting at <br />the highway entrance. It seems to be totally inconsistent for the Division to require posting "only" <br />at the access to the site for limited impact mining applications, while allowing a General 112 <br />Permit posting at the actual quary location, a site not visible from any public road or other place <br />[o which the public would normally have access. Amore logical reading of the rule is that a single <br />posting suffices in the case of Limited 110 or 110d operations, but that General 112 Permit <br />applicants may be required to make several postings. Such postings should presumably be at the <br />boundary of the land parcel affected by the proposed mine or quarry, not within [he parcel a[ [he <br />boundary of the actual quarry site. These notices can only be understood as public notices, and it <br />makes no sense to post such notice only in the center of an 11,000-acre parcel where the only <br />persons to see i[ would be the owner of the parcel and the owner's lessees and their invitees, plus <br />the occasional trespasser. <br />The Division and the Board should therefore specifically detemrine if the posting at the <br />actual quarry site under these circumstances satisfies Rule 1.6.2(1)(6). If it has been the policy <br />and practice of the Division to require more than one posting of General 112 Permit applications, <br />or to require postings at the boundary of the land parcel affected by the proposed activity, Castle <br />Concrete should be required to reapply and re-post notice in accordance with Division policy. If <br />this has not been the Division's policy and practice, and the Board determines that Castle is in full <br />compliance with Rule 1.6.2(1)(6), the Division should rewrite its rules to require adequate postings <br />in locations actually visible to the public and/or to clarify that this is required in the case of 112 <br />permits, as it clearly is in the case of 110 and l lOd permits. <br />The question of adequate posting takes on additional significance in light of Castle's <br />contention that only hunters are allowed to use the Table Mountain parcel. Tf this is in fact true, <br />the notice could be expected to come to [he attention of only a minuscule fraction of the general <br />public, since many Colorado residents are not hunters and only a small proportion of hunters could <br />be expected to be on the Table Mountain parcel during the period of posting. The fact that 1\~ir. <br />Keffelew approved the posting location may be of little weigh[, since to reach the site, he would <br />have passed a public bulletin board. Unless he were informed of the limited public accessibility <br />(to say nothing of Castle Concrete's contention that even unarmed birdvvatchers who.wenl to view <br />the notice sign would be trespassing), he may well have though[ that the actual quarry location was <br />accessible to and frequently visited by the public at large. If the Division authorized a single <br />posting at the actual quarry site with the misunderstanding that a notice posted a[ that location <br />