Laserfiche WebLink
;,• <br />1 ~, <br />,;~ ~~ <br />_ ~, <br />. .'-'- l '. ..: Y <br />..~~ <br />Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board <br />723 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Gentlemen: <br />• iii iiiiuiiiiiii iii <br />. 899 <br />Z7 October, ].977 <br /> <br />C~i~ ~1 i;77 <br /> <br />with regard to the Castle Concrete miang permit <br />applications for the Synder, Queen's Canyon and <br />Pikeview quarries, I offer the following objec- <br />tions: <br />1. Failure to provide a satisfactory reclamation <br />plan. <br />Explanation: The "general reclamation plan" <br />provided in the application is contrary to the <br />evaluation and recommendations of U.S. Forest <br />representative Donald Nielson,. <br />Specifically, the plans <br />and neglect the varying <br />the three quarries, (b) <br />mulching techniques for <br />call for drilling holes <br />do not provide for anim, <br />from being eaten. <br />are (a) not site specific <br />geoecological conditions of <br />do not provide for special <br />different s:Lcpes, (c) do not <br />for planting seed, and (d) <br />31 barriers to keep new growth <br />2.Unavailability of Reclamation plans for public <br />evaluation. <br />Explanation: The details of the reclamation plans <br />have been stamped "confidential". Although the Board <br />may novlknow what is in those plans, there has been no <br />public disclosure. <br />Castle Concrete should make public these economiQally <br />unimportant facts and give the public an extension of <br />time in which to respond. The preliminary rejection <br />of the applications has, of course, only muddled the <br />final date for public input. <br />One can only wonder about the intent of putting <br />confidential labels on reclamation plans, and the <br />implication to defraud the people of Colorado Springs. <br />~~~~I <br />