Laserfiche WebLink
- - ~ . <br />z <br />3. Past Reclamation Failures. <br />Explanation: In spite o£ 20 years of mining and <br />promises of reclamation, there has been little <br />successful reclamation to date. In Queen's Canyon, <br />of the 81 acres mined, only 12 acres have been <br />reclaimed; and those "reclaimed" areas are far short <br />of the vegetation that previously existed there. <br />Promises that rock spillage into Queen's Canyon <br />have been sorely broken. <br />Past reclaiming efforts to placate the public's <br />outcry, such as pine tree and yucca planting by the <br />Boy Scouts and Rotary Club, have been dismal failures <br />in the long run. <br />The company has not proceeded with reclamation in <br />good faith even though Castle signed an agreement <br />with the State guaranteeing to restore the area to <br />its original state. The burden of proof for future <br />successful reclamation efforts lies with Castle <br />Concrete. <br />4. The Public's inability to monitor reclamation, if the <br />permits are approved. <br />Explanation: The "one-time" approval of permits <br />for diggings that extend for more than fifty years <br />boggles the imagination. How will the public be <br />assured of feedback on the reclaiming efforts? <br />Would not yearly permit renewal and close evaluation <br />of the preceeding year's reclamation be more <br />appropriate? One cannot help but conceive of Castle's <br />chicanery once again by trying to push through the <br />Board a one-time permit for more than 50 years of <br />digging. <br />Who of us will be alive in fifty years to review the <br />reclamation? <br />For the above reasons, the Board should reject the Castle <br />Concrete applications. <br />Needless to say, the mere destruction of the front range <br />beauty, the water run-off and air pollution that these <br />diggings create are vitally important problems. But <br />unfortunately these are irrelevant to your decision. <br />