Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~I ~~~II~~I~I~~~ ~~~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />UEC 141983 <br />1.11NED LAND REC!C,"IlATIOP! DIVISION <br />Colo. Depi. of Natural Resources <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANDESITE ROCK COMPANY <br />FILE NUMBER 77-141 <br />RESPONSE OF HALLYN F. HALL, Landowner <br />Hallyn F. Hall, Landowner, hereby responds to the submittals of <br />Andesite Rock Company as follows: <br />The Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") initially heard the <br />Landowner's Complaint in this matter at its September meeting. The Board <br />specifically made no finding on the adequacy of notice to the Landowner, and <br />also stated that it would address other substantive issues in this case when <br />this matter came before the Board for a hearing on the merits of the case. <br />Now, despite the fact that the Board has expressly reserved its findings, the <br />Operator, Andesite Rock Company, attempts to assert that its November 19, <br />1981 permit precludes the Board from hearing the Landowner's Complaint and <br />has disposed of the integral matters at issue in this case. <br />The issues of notice, failure to consult, and water rights remain the <br />same as set out in Landowner's Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto <br />and incorporated here by this reference. <br />In this proceeding, the overriding issue has become whether <br />approximately 27 acres in the original permit area are to be reclaimed as hay <br />meadow, as requested by the Landowner, or as rangeland, as proposed by <br />Operator. The differences between the types of post-mining land use are <br /> <br />-1- <br />